Re: questions to candidates about communication
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007, Josip Rodin wrote: How much time do you generally have to read Debian-related e-mail? How much for the Debian mailing lists? If you only mean read, reading e-mail is a continuous process for me and I don't know how much time it sums up to. About half of the legitimate e-mail I get is Debian-related. How many lists do you follow, and which ones do you pay real attention to? Have you stopped following a Debian mailing list in the past, and if so, what was the most important/common reason for that? I subscribe to about 30 Debian lists. The ones I really follow are -devel, -devel-announce, -private, -vote, -legal, -project, as well as the Alioth mailing-lists for the projects I'm part of. The others I read regularly, too, but I kill threads more actively. I have stopped following -user and -user-french because they have too much traffic and I honestly don't feel like helping out everyone. I still kiboze these lists for packages I maintain, though. Could you describe an indicative example or two where you formed a distinctly positive or a distinctly negative opinion about a person based on what they wrote in a non-trivial flamewar^Wdiscussion? (There is no need to name anyone, just describe the situation as you feel is appropriate.) I do not wish to answer that directly. The opinion I have about persons goes well beyond distinctly positive or distinctly negative and changes too much with time (and people do change, too). Any example I would give would be too restrictive to be meaningful. I can however say for instance that I am grateful to people who save the day by providing code or a solution acceptable to all parties to stop heated discussions. I also feel the urge to dismember cute tiny animals when I see Debian has done so for years, we cannot change that used as an argument. It's really countless tiny bits like that that make me build my opinion. What's your opinion on what it's like for others to be reading our mailing lists? Feel free to be vague here :) Since more and more development teams have been created and now have their own mailing-lists, pure technical cooperative discussion has moved away from the traditional Debian lists such as -devel. So people see more arguing and less technical discussions. Is that bad? I don't know. In general, what's your opinion about the quality of communication in the project? Freely elaborate this last part :) We have great tools and initiatives for communication (countless web pages, the mailing-lists, the wiki, the BTS, DWN, IRC). But it's hard to know where is everything, and not everything is there. I believe communication within teams is correct. People discuss in their mailing-list and hang out on the IRC channel. But of course this does not scale to communication between teams and developers, which is clearly not as good. There are teams who are eager to tell the world what they did (I'm thinking about D-I, or the Xlib/XCB announcement). Others we simply don't know what they do, and as I said in my platform sadly I don't see how to have them properly report without having the DPL ask them to. Regards, -- Sam. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: questions to candidates about communication
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 03:30:18AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: Hi, How much time do you generally have to read Debian-related e-mail? How much for the Debian mailing lists? I normally expect to read most of my Debian-related mail every day. I read several of the lists directly in my inbox, and on average I probably spend an hour or two every day. At the moment, things are significantly raised above that due to the mix of the DPL campaigning period and Debconf work. How many lists do you follow, and which ones do you pay real attention to? I directly read debian-devel-announce, debian-project, debian-private, debian-vote, debian-release and debian-cd in my inbox. I normally read mails to each very soon after they get to me, although some may not get very much attention (e.g. many of the unblock requests to debian-release at the moment). Add to that the various debconf lists and debian-uk. I'm also subscribed to the vast majority of the debian lists via a local mail-to-news gateway. I may not pay direct attention to them every day, but I at least skim through all of the port mailing lists, debian-devel, debian-user, debian-legal, debian-dpkg, debian-boot, debian-policy, debian-i18n, debian-bugs-dist reasonably frequently. I'm also active on IRC on a number of channels, mainly focused on the things I'm working on (e.g. #debian-cd and #debconf-foo). I read the contents of Planet regularly too. In general, I can find the time OK to keep up with reading all these sources. The problem is contributing - it takes much longer to write mail than read it, and I would often rather spend time to get my views out correctly than simply rush things. Have you stopped following a Debian mailing list in the past, and if so, what was the most important/common reason for that? From time to time in the past I've stopped following various lists for a while, but I have normally come back to them later. This is normally just due to traffic levels (debian-user and debian-devel can be *very* high-traffic at times, for example). Also, large flamewars may cause me to leave threads for a couple of days and catch up on them later. I don't tend to drop lists for more than short periods. Could you describe an indicative example or two where you formed a distinctly positive or a distinctly negative opinion about a person based on what they wrote in a non-trivial flamewar^Wdiscussion? (There is no need to name anyone, just describe the situation as you feel is appropriate.) Some people are very good at making their points on mailing lists, saying what they need to say without falling into the trap of repetition or (even worse) insults and flames. There are several people in the project whose mails I will tend to look for and give more attention because I recognise this quality. Others are *really* bad at following the topic of a discussion, or paying attention to what others have to say. They're often to be found in the core of flamewars and disagreements, lashing out in all directions. In those cases, I will often skim their first few mails on a thread, find oh, foo is off again and pay much less attention to the rest of their posts. Unfortunately, there is also quite a lot of off-topic junk on our lists. :-( Even in the worst of cases, I have *almost* never resorted to mail filtering or IRC-ignoring people. In the 10+ years I've been following Debian development I have only ever had to resort to those methods twice. What's your opinion on what it's like for others to be reading our mailing lists? Feel free to be vague here :) Our lists are high-traffic, active places. In the middle of the vast amounts of noise, there are some real chunks of brilliance and some incredibly useful discussions. But finding those can be far too difficult - it takes a lot of effort. In general, what's your opinion about the quality of communication in the project? Freely elaborate this last part :) It could be much improved. I would urge all of us to think more before we contribute to some of the overheated discussions that have become all too common recently. More self control and better focus on what we're trying to achieve as a project would help us work towards our goals. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] sladen I actually stayed in a hotel and arrived to find a post-it note stuck to the mini-bar saying Paul: This fridge and fittings are the correct way around and do not need altering signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: questions to candidates about communication
Hi, On Thu, 08 Mar 2007, Josip Rodin wrote: How much time do you generally have to read Debian-related e-mail? How much for the Debian mailing lists? This really depends on my workload and in the interest that I have on the discussions going on. I have an incoming folder for mails coming to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and any debian role address that I can have (mainly [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and I have one folder for each Debian list that I follow. When I'm really busy, I read them only once a day. In that case, reading mailing list really means skimming the topics to see if there's something interesting for me. Otherwise, when I have a bit more time, it happens that I afford 2-3 hours each day to participate in some important discussions. Simply reading doesn't take that much, it's really writing mails that takes time, because I take the time to think about what I write. I dislike re-reading myself afterwards to see that I've been too quick and that I might have offended someone, or that my reasoning isn't well articulated. How many lists do you follow, and which ones do you pay real attention to? Around 22 lists. I pay attention to most of the list that I subscribe except for lists like debian-devel-changes or debian-bugs-rc. The major list that takes me time are the biggest ones (depending on the period): -devel, -project, -vote, -private, -release (only since a few months ;)) Have you stopped following a Debian mailing list in the past, and if so, what was the most important/common reason for that? Yes. It was usually because I lost interest in the topic. For example I have been subscribed to -boot because I wrote a d-i module (autopartkit) a few years ago, however I haven't worked on d-i since then and I unsubscribed when I realized that I was only marking all the mails as read instead of actually reading some of them. I'm regularly pissed of by the amount of sterile discussions but that hasn't led me to unsubscribe because I know that it's always limited to a given discussion, it's doesn't mean much for the next discussion to come. Could you describe an indicative example or two where you formed a distinctly positive or a distinctly negative opinion about a person based on what they wrote in a non-trivial flamewar^Wdiscussion? (There is no need to name anyone, just describe the situation as you feel is appropriate.) - When the same name appears too much in the discussion, it's a bad sign in particular if he isn't the initiator of the discussion. I read the first mails of the given person and check if there's progress in the discussion or if they're only trying to convince someone else that they are wrong. In that case, I skip the subthread. - When someone resorts to insults very early in the discussion (that's not to say that they're ok when they're throwed at the end of the discussion!), it gives me a bad feeling of that person. - The worst is probably one-liners answers to attack/mock someone else. We have too many of those. On the contrary, when someone takes the time to respond to several mails with a single one, it's usually a proof that he respects the time taken by others to read his contributions. What's your opinion on what it's like for others to be reading our mailing lists? Feel free to be vague here :) It really depends on the person and in the mailing list being watched. Most small-scale mailing lists are working ok. debian-devel improved since we apply the policy to move non-technical discussions to -project. In general, what's your opinion about the quality of communication in the project? Freely elaborate this last part :) It's not very good. We have way too many people who are complaining for the sake of it, because they have lost faith in whoever they are discussing with. So they just write mails to relieve their anger instead of being constructive. I really prefer when they are doing so in their blog. Because the blog is more a personal space whereas the mailing list is a collaboration space that we should respect and make the best use of it. It's true however that we also have many people who are difficult to communicate with. So there are sometimes good reasons to be frustrated. The difficult part is to be able to redirect this energy in a positive way. This is where the empower people to do stuff is really important. You must show support to your fellow developers even if you're not always convinced by their project, you can criticize their ideas but not mock them for having suggested it. There's no reason to stay in their ways if they are not doing something contradictory with our goals. I also think that we lack some identity. We have a strong basis with the DFSG and the social contract, but there's much more to forge our identity. I think it's the role of the DPL to force the project to have better definition of itself. This might mean writing position statement on behalf of the project, or draft some GR to resolve problems to come. This
Re: questions to candidates about communication
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 03:30:18AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: Hi, How much time do you generally have to read Debian-related e-mail? Too much :) How much for the Debian mailing lists? One hour up to a few hours per day. How many lists do you follow, and which ones do you pay real attention to? I've lost count, really. 20? That's about the number of Debian lists I'm subscribed to, I think, and there are a number of non-Debian lists I subscribe to as well. The ones I pay real attention to changes from time to time, depending on what is being written there. Currently, they are: * -devel-announce * -68k * -private * -curiosa * -devel * -vote :) and, to a lesser extent, * -project * -newmaint * -arm Have you stopped following a Debian mailing list in the past, and if so, what was the most important/common reason for that? Usually, because the total volume of mail that I received was getting too high, requiring me to skip interesting mails. Could you describe an indicative example or two where you formed a distinctly positive or a distinctly negative opinion about a person based on what they wrote in a non-trivial flamewar^Wdiscussion? (There is no need to name anyone, just describe the situation as you feel is appropriate.) Not really. I don't easily judge people by what they write on mailinglists. I think this is one of my strengths; you can flame me today, and I've probably already forgotten by tomorrow. Well---Let's say by next week. What's your opinion on what it's like for others to be reading our mailing lists? Feel free to be vague here :) I do feel that often, people use wording which might offend, or shock. Personally, I don't easily feel offended, but that doesn't mean I think such wording should be allowed. This is, in fact, one of the things I do want to work on. In general, what's your opinion about the quality of communication in the project? Freely elaborate this last part :) It could be much better. We don't do too bad when we agree, or when a few issues need to be fleshed out; but when we have opposing opinions, it doesn't work so well. It shouldn't be so hard, I think -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
questions to candidates about communication
Hi, How much time do you generally have to read Debian-related e-mail? How much for the Debian mailing lists? How many lists do you follow, and which ones do you pay real attention to? Have you stopped following a Debian mailing list in the past, and if so, what was the most important/common reason for that? Could you describe an indicative example or two where you formed a distinctly positive or a distinctly negative opinion about a person based on what they wrote in a non-trivial flamewar^Wdiscussion? (There is no need to name anyone, just describe the situation as you feel is appropriate.) What's your opinion on what it's like for others to be reading our mailing lists? Feel free to be vague here :) In general, what's your opinion about the quality of communication in the project? Freely elaborate this last part :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ted replies to Martin (Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile)
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:22:54PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: (all other candidates feel free to answer the questions as well.) 1.) What is your opinion regarding the current status of debian-volatile? I just looked it up today. I like the concept a lot. 2.) Do you think this services should be made an official service of the debian project? Please give a reason for your answer. Having up-to-date spam filters and virus scanners in the stable distribution is a really useful thing. For that reason, I would like it to be made an official part of Debian. However, it must not be done in a way that burdens the current ftp-team. 3.) What do you think about including a volatile section into the main debian archive? (How) can this still be handled by the current volatile team? Who is on the current volatile team? They will definitely need to be Debian Developers. I am not sure what criteria is used when deciding that even a DD is trustworthy enough to become an ftp-master, so I suspect there may be some problems there. The ftp team is fairly hidden from the project at large; the only way volatile can go in is by talking to them and figuring out how to make it happen without creating any security issues. As DPL, I would like to set up a meeting between the ftp team and the volatile team to see what it would take. Ted -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Ted Walther Address: 5690 Pioneer Ave, Burnaby, BC V5H2X6 (Canada) Contact: 604-430-4973 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ted replies to Martin (Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile)
also sprach Ted Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.03.12.2209 +0100]: Who is on the current volatile team? They will definitely need to be Debian Developers. How do you intend to work with all those hundreds of active contributors who aren't yet DDs? Will you ignore them? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! sometimes the urge to do bad is nearly overpowering -- ben horne signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Ted replies to Martin (Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/12/2006 06:09 PM, Ted Walther wrote: On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:22:54PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: (all other candidates feel free to answer the questions as well.) 1.) What is your opinion regarding the current status of debian-volatile? I just looked it up today. I like the concept a lot. Nice. :-) [...] 3.) What do you think about including a volatile section into the main debian archive? (How) can this still be handled by the current volatile team? Who is on the current volatile team? http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-volatile/team They will definitely need to be Debian Developers. With that in mind, you have just kicked me off the Volatile Team. :-) BTW, I do not have access to all Debian Volatile information, wchi means, some security sensitive information I will only have access with the rest of the people, but I'm part of the team, and so far, the only non-DD. I am not sure what criteria is used when deciding that even a DD is trustworthy enough to become an ftp-master, so I suspect there may be some problems there. The ftp team is fairly hidden from the project at large; the only way volatile can go in is by talking to them and figuring out how to make it happen without creating any security issues. As DPL, I would like to set up a meeting between the ftp team and the volatile team to see what it would take. Ted Hmmm... Volatile try to interact with lots of teams to find good solutions, but I should add that Stable Release is also very important. Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEFLuJCjAO0JDlykYRAucIAKCKUzKQf3rcfspgQZXGSed985u/8ACgxI1q r9bfTAy9jzzdXSnxaVz8hwI= =Fsxg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ted replies to Martin (Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile)
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 09:23:37PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: They will definitely need to be Debian Developers. With that in mind, you have just kicked me off the Volatile Team. :-) Non-DD contributors are important to Debian, and they deserve greater recognition and support from the project. If a volatile developer were to be making uploads to the queue and things like that, they would need to be a DD because of how our key-signing and security stuff works. Being a DD implies a level of trust that the person is who they say they are, and are reachable and responsible for their actions. This does not mean that every member of the volatile team has to be a DD, or that only DD's make important contributions. Frankly, I would like to see greater diversity in Debian; DD's have always had yeoman status, but what of those who just want a few rights of common without the responsibility of maintaining a fief? I think we need to allow for that. Ted -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Ted Walther Address: 5690 Pioneer Ave, Burnaby, BC V5H2X6 (Canada) Contact: 604-430-4973 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:22:54PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: 1.) What is your opinion regarding the current status of debian-volatile? [...] Please see the bottom of [1] for my opinion. --Jeroen [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/03/msg00211.html -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: 1.) What is your opinion regarding the current status of debian-volatile? ... more questions about volatile ... Wasn't this just asked by Joey? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile
This one time, at band camp, Martin Zobel-Helas said: Hi Ari, On Wednesday, 08 Mar 2006, you wrote: Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: 1.) What is your opinion regarding the current status of debian-volatile? ... more questions about volatile ... Wasn't this just asked by Joey? yes, in some parts. But as i consider myself as one of the debian-volatile team, i had some more (extended) questions. Am i not allowed to ask them? During this campaigning period, it would be better to address your questions to Zeke instead of Ari, as Zeke seems to be the brains of the outfit. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:22:54PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: 2.) Do you think this services should be made an official service of the debian project? Please give a reason for your answer. I like to think of debian.net as an area where we experiment for things that might or might not become debian.org later. The main reason to keep something as debian.net on an ongoing basis (rather than turn it into debian.org) is if we can't actually support it properly, in which case we should fix that. 3.) What do you think about including a volatile section into the main debian archive? (How) can this still be handled by the current volatile team? I'm not really familiar with that to comment in depth; I suspect the practical concerns should disappear with the mirror split (but obviously, we'll need to have another look when that's settled), and I'm not sure what sort of procedure is actually desired. There's been some ongoing suggestions about just including volatile stuff in stable updates; it might make sense to have an SRM team where Joey reviews security updates and similar things, while someone from the volatile team approves other updates. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:49:26PM +0900, Seo Sanghyeon wrote: The Debian Free Software Guidelines states that The program must include source code. 1. How do you define source code yourself? Any definition of source code, to be useful to the Debian Project in applying our Free Software Guidelines, has to be broadly applicable. I consider source code to be the form of a work of authorship which is used for making authorial changes in the digital domain. I add the final qualifier because Debian is not set up to distribute anything that can't be represented as a bit stream. I'm not sure that things that don't have authors are appopriately subject to so-called intellectual property laws, such as copyrights and patents. Things like the set of all 100-digit prime numbers are not authored, merely discovered. 2. I think that people have different ideas of what source code means. Do you agree? Are there significant disagreements regarding this issue within the Debian Project? Yes, I agree that people have different ideas of what source code means. I'm not sure how significant those disagreements are in the general case; most of the time, in my experience, when someone advocates a definition of source code for which the practical consequences are at variance with those of my own (or the FSF's The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.[1]), that person is attempting to reason backwards from a desired end, such as as I want package foobar 1.2.3 in Debian main, rather than forward from a principle such as We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software.[2]. 3. (If you answered yes to 2) Is that a problem? Not in general. It could become one if a sufficient number of people adopt a view that has large-scale divergent consequences, such as a definition of source code that would somehow lead to a substantial blurring or elimination of the distintion between DFSG-free and DFSG-non-free software. 4. (If you answered yes to 3) Is it necessary to amend DFSG? Only if the criterion set down in my previous response holds. It may be desirable to amend the DFSG in other ways, for other reasons, however. 5. (If you answered yes to 4) How it should be amended? I think for the majority of cases, Debian Developers have a fairly consistent intuitive notion of what source code is. So, no, I don't feel it's imperative right now to amend the DFSG to add a definition of source code. We might want to do so to head off future disagreements. If so, I would submit my definition for consideration as one means of clarifying the issues. 6. Which of the following satisfies DFSG #2? What is the general principle? Or should it be case-by-case? [...] I expressed my general principle above, and would prefer to permit the debian-legal mailing list (or a similar body) to grapple with the details of applying that principle on a case-by-case basis rather than granting some pre-prepared list my imprimatur, in the event I am elected. The devil is almost always in the details. The most destructive conduct I've seen on the debian-legal mailing list comes from people blowing a disagreement over detail into some kind of colossal threat to the viability of the Debian Project. It's no shame to maintain a package that is not in Debian main. I do so myself[3]. [1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt [2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract [3] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/otherosfs/xtrs -- G. Branden Robinson| Religion is excellent stuff for Debian GNU/Linux | keeping common people quiet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Napoleon Bonaparte http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
also sprach Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.03.06.2352 +0100]: I am not involved in pornography, gambling, or anything else that is illegal. Neither of the first two are illegal. Maybe in your country, but then you must not forget that Debian is International... You don't have to worry that I am a slippery politician making promises one day and going back on them tomorrow. I am real. I am here. And I am ready to talk to you about what you need, and how I can help you achieve the goals you desire. Sounds like a slippery politician to me. Those are also real; you can even smash cakes into their faces. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:28:30AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I'm asking: are there any potential situations in which you would feel the need to curtail outside activities because they could cast a bad light on your work as the DPL? Not at all. All my non-Debian activities are 100% legal, 100% kosher. My choir practice group and bee-keeping club wouldn't have it any other way! Jonathan -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Website: http://reactor-core.org/ Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:15:00PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:49:26PM +0900, Seo Sanghyeon wrote: 1. How do you define source code yourself? Like pornography, I know source code when I see it. There may be some edge cases where not everyone agrees what constitutes source code, but porn is like that too. Where do you draw the line between a tasteful nude and exploitive smut? Easy, willing cooperation of the model. Note that purely fictional artwork can never be exploitive smut, because nobody is being exploited. (False dilemma, but admittedly it's the false dilemma posited by the US government to excuse their efforts to control the market) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:28:30AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I'm asking: are there any potential situations in which you would feel the need to curtail outside activities because they could cast a bad light on your work as the DPL? Not at all. All my non-Debian activities are 100% legal, 100% kosher. My choir practice group and bee-keeping club wouldn't have it any other way! I'll take that as a no, even if my outside activies caused disrepute to Debian, I would not stop them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have the activities of Bomis.com harmed the growth and reputation of the Wikipedia project? Yet I do nothing even half as controversial. What is controversial about bomis.com? Your web site certainly was controversial; the evidence for that is the controversy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
For some reason, I don't seem to have got the first message in this thread. I'll go looking for it now. Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Should we act against political/legal problems as Project? When there are issues that affect the entire project, then I think it's right for the project to provide its opinion. For the most part, we recognise that software patents threaten free software - but where's our discussion of why they're wrong? Where's our position statement on what approaches we think software authors should take towards dealing with them? We've been lax at providing our opinions [1], and I think the general lack of consensus on various issues has contributed a great deal to that. * Will we collaborate with other groups for political/legal issue? When it makes sense, we should certainly collaborate with other groups. We don't agree with the FSF on every issue, but when we do we ought to be working with them. We have a great deal of respect in the community, and it seems worthwhile to use that to help our argument. * Should DPL lead us on political/legal action? (announce, speech, demonstration march, post article, and so on) I'm not sure about the idea of leading marches (in general, I've had no great feeling that they make any significant difference), but it certainly makes sense for the DPL to put their name to statements that the project makes. [1] The Microsoft sender ID license is the only one that I can think of recently, though I may well have missed some. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, As far as I read threads, they are mainly focused Project inside. Yes, they are important issue, but I think one of DPL's work is a representation to the world as spokesperson. Debian Project Leader said ... will be respected than any DD's talk by media. Whichever we want to become or not, many people think Debian Project is great advocator (and obstinacy) of 'free' and 'opensource'. Now, we're facing many political/legal troubles such as software patent. Questions: * Do you think DPL has spokesperson's job? * What do you think about Debian Project acts for political/legal theme with other projects such as FSF, EFF and so on? (Although we've already done sometimes.) * If foreign people asks you speech or discussion, can you make a time to trip even if the place is too far from your home? Thanks, - -- Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAkIqw7kACgkQQKW+7XLQPLG7iACgiqNKPkb/jxBGSnx+at9MX6sr FGwAoIaIgJHxT8Xydu7rPAJoZsyunaQS =x8/y -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 05:48:20PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote: Questions: * Do you think DPL has spokesperson's job? Absolutely! Every Debian Developer acts as a representative of Debian, but the DPL is first among equals, so to speak. My skills at writing, public speaking, and listening to others are big asset in being a spokesperson. * What do you think about Debian Project acts for political/legal theme with other projects such as FSF, EFF and so on? (Although we've already done sometimes.) Debian has its own goals. Often we cooperate with the FSF and EFF because we have many shared interests. But at the end of the day, we are making a distribution. Many of our members help out other organizations, like the FSF, and EFF, on their own. Debian doesn't have the resources to focus on anything other than making the best GNU/Linux distribution on the planet. * If foreign people asks you speech or discussion, can you make a time to trip even if the place is too far from your home? Sure, as long as I had help with travel expenses. Those were good questions; thanks for asking them. Hope to hear more from you in the future. Jonathan -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Website: http://reactor-core.org/ Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 05:48:20PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote: Questions: * Do you think DPL has spokesperson's job? Absolutely! Every Debian Developer acts as a representative of Debian, but the DPL is first among equals, so to speak. My skills at writing, public speaking, and listening to others are big asset in being a spokesperson. Many people were upset when you had a domain registered using your debian.org address which contained content that some felt was questionable and did not want associated with Debian. At the time, I believe you felt that they massively misunderstood the nature of your site and your intentions, but you did not at once agree to change the domain registration, though you later did. As Project Leader, the possibility for such misunderstandings becomes all the more important, and all the more likely. It is very important that people hostile to the project not acquire ammunition by casting aspersions at the Project Leader's other activities. This means that despite an individual's insistence that *this* is Debian, and *that* is unrelated, people can and will link the two, especially if it gives them ammunition against the Project. There are hostile and malicious people out there. Do you believe that the Project Leader has an obligation to avoid extremely controversial and potentially inflammatory outside activities which might bring disrepute on the Project? If so, would you distance yourself more clearly from the content on your web site? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:05:16 -0800, Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) Debian doesn't have the resources to focus on anything other than making the best GNU/Linux distribution on the planet. Therefore, Hurd and/or BSD porters should be damned? Sorry, couldn't resist. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 12:44:44AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: Am Samstag, den 05.03.2005, 23:11 + schrieb Andrew Suffield: On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 03:30:14PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Indeed, I would be reluctant to vote for any candiate who would commit to twenty-four definite answers as part of his campaign, no matter what the answers were. Or, for that matter, one who couldn't spot the fairly big hole in the questions and just blindly answered them. Would you be so kind to fill this hole with the appropriate question, so that the candidates can answer it? I'm curious. There isn't really a good way to answer your question here, and anyway I'm more curious to see how the candidates respond *without* my spelling it out for them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
Seo Sanghyeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. How do you define source code yourself? I believe that source code is anything that allows us to learn how the software works and modify it to function in different ways. In almost all cases, the GPL's preferred form for modification will be source code - I think there are cases where something other than the preferred form for modification can also be considered source. 2. I think that people have different ideas of what source code means. Do you agree? Are there significant disagreements regarding this issue within the Debian Project? There are plainly people who disagree over this issue. I don't know whether this disagreement is significant. 3. (If you answered yes to 2) Is that a problem? It's not a problem in itself that people hold different opinions, but it sometimes makes it harder for us to work with the rest of the free software community and it certainly wastes time in argument that could be better spent. 4. (If you answered yes to 3) Is it necessary to amend DFSG? That depends on how much disagreement there is. At the moment, I have no good feeling for how strongly people feel about the definition of source code. 5. (If you answered yes to 4) How it should be amended? I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but the constitution only allows one mechanism for changing the DFSG. If you're talking about What changes should be made, then I don't know - that depends on what the majority of people believe. 6. Which of the following satisfies DFSG #2? What is the general principle? Or should it be case-by-case? I'm not going to get into a case-by-case discussion, because I don't believe it to be interesting or relevant. The DPL's opinion in this matter should carry no more weight than any other developer's. The DPL's involvement should be to note that there is a lack of consensus over the issue and work to rectify that, not to argue a specific side of the debate. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
Kenshi Muto wrote: Questions: * What do you think about Debian Project acts for political/legal theme with other projects such as FSF, EFF and so on? (Although we've already done sometimes.) * Do you think DPL has spokesperson's job? Ideally, I think the people explaining what's going on should be the one's doing the work, rather than having some specific spokesperson. Further, the primary audience for Debian is, in my opinion, our users whom we can reach directly via debian-announce, debian-devel-announce, debian-user and our website. I think that's a more important focus than talking to the press; though I'd expect to have to work on improving my handling of both those things if elected. As far as political/legal statements go, I like the current process of having interested developers prepare statements and have the DPL sign off on them when they're done and there's a consensus they make sense. I don't think there's any need for the DPL to do a lot of work here, beyond providing some basic coordination and motivation. * If foreign people asks you speech or discussion, can you make a time to trip even if the place is too far from your home? Yes. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 05:48:20PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote: Hi, As far as I read threads, they are mainly focused Project inside. Yes, they are important issue, but I think one of DPL's work is a representation to the world as spokesperson. This is true and it is an other great application for the DPL team: Bdale has a unique position to communicate with buissness people, Enrico can talk to NP people better then most others, Branden speaks fluent english legalese, if necessary. I myself would be able to connect well to a broad variety of differnt people, too. Questions: * Do you think DPL has spokesperson's job? Yes, but primary he is the Debian Project Leader, not the Debian Press Contact. * What do you think about Debian Project acts for political/legal theme with other projects such as FSF, EFF and so on? (Although we've already done sometimes.) I can not parse this. could you rephrase this? * If foreign people asks you speech or discussion, can you make a time to trip even if the place is too far from your home? Even without beeing DPL i traveled ten(?) times (partly to other continents) during the last year on debian buissness to conferences and gatherings. I gave talks on a variety of subjects and before different audiences and am good at it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
Seo Sanghyeon wrote: The Debian Free Software Guidelines states that The program must include source code. 1. How do you define source code yourself? It means different things in different contexts; for Debian's purposes it means the stuff you need to modify then compile to produce the stuff you actually want to use. The most significant drawback of any disagreement over what's source code is people spending more time arguing over what source code is, rather than creating more of it. My understanding is that most of the project is able to tell when the source code available is sufficient, and I'm confident in the appropriate delegates' (ftpmaster for acceptance into the archive and RM for what's release critical and not) judgement on this issue. It'd be pretty weird if I wasn't, I guess. :) Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates: as spokesperson of Debian Project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Andreas, At Sun, 6 Mar 2005 22:11:19 +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: * What do you think about Debian Project acts for political/legal theme with other projects such as FSF, EFF and so on? (Although we've already done sometimes.) I can not parse this. could you rephrase this? Oops, sorry. Answers from Jonathan and Anthony are just I expected (thanks, aj and krooger). I intended to know * Should we act against political/legal problems as Project? * Will we collaborate with other groups for political/legal issue? * Should DPL lead us on political/legal action? (announce, speech, demonstration march, post article, and so on) Thanks, - -- Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAkIrnsUACgkQQKW+7XLQPLEpOACg1771NO++36ynAL5FFFpd5kb+ RQsAn29eLRdDMRQv6bygtsvvrQ37kp3Z =eZUX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions to candidates: what is source?
The Debian Free Software Guidelines states that The program must include source code. 1. How do you define source code yourself? 2. I think that people have different ideas of what source code means. Do you agree? Are there significant disagreements regarding this issue within the Debian Project? 3. (If you answered yes to 2) Is that a problem? 4. (If you answered yes to 3) Is it necessary to amend DFSG? 5. (If you answered yes to 4) How it should be amended? 6. Which of the following satisfies DFSG #2? What is the general principle? Or should it be case-by-case? * ELF binary without C source * Java class file without Java source (This is reasonably decompilable: cf. jad package) * Python bytecode without Python source (This is easily decompilable: cf. decompyle package) * Binary firmware data * configure script without configure.in * C source generated by Bison without .y source * In general, automatically generated source without good way to regenerate (But generated file may include every line of original source, perhaps as comments This is generated from original line blah blah) * Prebuilt HTML file without LaTeX source (cf. python-doc) * Prebuilt CHM (Compiled HTML) file without source HTML (This can be extracted: cf. chmlib, but perhaps not indexing information) * True type font made with autotracing without original bitmaps (cf. autotrace, potrace) * Opening book for board games without editing tools (gnuchess-book and gnugo package have opening books, but these are in well-known PGN and SGF format, so this is a hypothetical question) * Binary encoded data without source or encoding tools (Wordlist, thesarus, etc. cf. bug #241279) * Automatically generated character set encoding table without tools originally used for generation. (This rarely changes, so it's possible even the upstream doesn't have tools anymore) * Dump of neural network data without training data or without exact method to duplicate the network * In general, statistical data gathered from large amount of samples (I am not sure, but I think Mozilla's Universal Charset Detection uses character distribution table of East Asian languages gathered from large samples) * JPEG image without higher quality image from which it was compressed (JPEG is lossy) * Bitmap image merged from many layers without layer information (e.g. GIMP's XCF format) * Bitmap image without corresponding vector format (e.g. SVG) * MP3 compressed sound without original sound source (MP3 encoders patent-encumbered? Also MP3 is lossy) * Ogg Vorbis compressed sound without original sound source (Ogg is lossy) * FLAC compressed sound without original sound source (FLAC is not lossy) * Offline version of documentations in Wiki or FAQ CGI script, etc. downloaded by, say, wget, without original Wikitext or FAQ database dump * Binary image of programming environment used for bootstrapping purpose, but not exactly correspond to environment to be bootstrapped (Think Lisp, Smalltalk, etc.) * What else? Seo Sanghyeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
Scripsit Seo Sanghyeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. Which of the following satisfies DFSG #2? What is the general principle? Or should it be case-by-case? [snip TWENTY-FOUR semi-concrete examples] However relevant and interesting it would be to get the candidates' general opinion about the DFSG's place in the project (given the controversy that has surrounded it in recent years) and our methods for getting from the DFSG to actual yes/no-answers, I don't think the right way to shed light on the issue is to ask each candidate to produce a cheat sheet of that magnitude. Indeed, I would be reluctant to vote for any candiate who would commit to twenty-four definite answers as part of his campaign, no matter what the answers were. We don't need a leader who sees that kind of micromanagement as part of the DPL's job. -- Henning Makholm En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
Ha! This gets the official best question so far award. Especially the neural network bit. That's rich. On Saturday 05 March 2005 7:49 am, Seo Sanghyeon wrote: 6. Which of the following satisfies DFSG #2? What is the general principle? Or should it be case-by-case? * ELF binary without C source * Java class file without Java source (This is reasonably decompilable: cf. jad package) ... * Dump of neural network data without training data or without exact method to duplicate the network ... -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates: what is source?
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 03:30:14PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Indeed, I would be reluctant to vote for any candiate who would commit to twenty-four definite answers as part of his campaign, no matter what the answers were. Or, for that matter, one who couldn't spot the fairly big hole in the questions and just blindly answered them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:16:00AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Personally I don't agree with you. An eg. that doesn't touch either you or me directly: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=236780 Yes, but had I disagreed with Branden, my opinion would've been noted and very quickly discarded. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, they get kicked out of the team briefly, others lose their access, Which others? afaik noone other than you has been kicked out from the XFS. My account was closed once to attempt to diagnose a problem you had connecting to the repository. For reference this was coordinated on IRC of which i do not have logs (#debian-devel on freenode). I was briefly excommunicated from the XSF, and everyone had their access suspended, when I made the libGLU/libGL-renaming commit. That was when Branden set #debian-devel's topic to 'everyone congratulate Daniel Stone, he is the new XFree86 maintainer', or words to that effect. and #debian-devel's topic announces that the person has hijacked the package in question. Even if it was me the object of the topic i would have find it funny, perhaps my italian sense of humor? ;) I found it vaguely amusing (in a morbid kind of way), but it's not the sort of thing you do with packages that are, Branden insists, absolutely criticl to every single system running Debian. More seriously, I would have probably reacted the same way if someone was going to upload one of the packages i co-maintain without warning and specially when i am not VAC or MIA, but active almost 24/7 and the TODO list for that release was still not empty. What would have been your reaction to a similar situation in which you were sitting in Branden position? I'm not defending my conduct here as the way to work in a team; I'm stating what happened before this to make me decided I needed to leave the XSF, is not a sterling example of team leadership. If Branden is suggesting this style he used to manage one very active contributor (such as ignoring my emails asking about some issues and then flaming me for doing it 'wrong' when I had to do *something*), can be successfully expanded to cover the entire Debian project, we're in trouble. Note that I am not commenting on your personal feelings since they represent your point of view and your personality and it doesn't stand up to me neither to judge them or try to convince you to change them. I do indeed have my own feelings on my issue, and they aren't necessarily the obvious ones. This is wildly OT for -vote, though - what I did is irrelevant (or, more to the point, why); Branden's reactions to my actions are what's in question here. And not the issue of myself uploading 4.3.0-1 - all the stuff before that, that made me decide to leave the XSF. :) d -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Personally I don't agree with you. An eg. that doesn't touch either you or me directly: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=236780 Yes, but had I disagreed with Branden, my opinion would've been noted and very quickly discarded. I think we are going personal here and i don't like to (since i am sure it will endup in a flameware, humorwant to bet Daniel that if it is not for us, someone else will turn this it into a flame? ;)/humor), but Thomas Hood (236780-submitter) expressed his disagrement with Branden on a certain decision and i don't read anywhere that Thomas is 'wrong'. If Branden is suggesting this style he used to manage one very active contributor (such as ignoring my emails asking about some issues and then flaming me for doing it 'wrong' when I had to do *something*), can be successfully expanded to cover the entire Debian project, we're in trouble. [SNIP] Branden's reactions to my actions are what's in question here. I find perfectly normal that some people don't like other people and this is true for all of us. It is simply part of the human nature. It happens everywhere all the time.. at work, with friends and so on... And at this point you might also want to be fair towards all the candidates. How would you interpret this mail from the current DPL? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200311/msg00116.html (note that this reference is NOT meant to take credits away from anyone but only to show that even Martin as Branden as everyone else has a human side, as well all of you can just poke debian-apache for my flames.. http://lists.debian.org/debian-apache/2004/debian-apache-200403/msg00220.html oh yes.. i am human too. doh! ;)) Of course we do agree that who is going to take leadership of Debian will have to behave impartially on top of his/her personal feelings, but I don't think it is fair to point the finger to any of the candidates using a single personal case. Fabio -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: Yes, but had I disagreed with Branden, my opinion would've been noted and very quickly discarded. I think we are going personal here and i don't like to (since i am sure it will endup in a flameware, humorwant to bet Daniel that if it is not for us, someone else will turn this it into a flame? ;)/humor), but Thomas Hood (236780-submitter) expressed his disagrement with Branden on a certain decision and i don't read anywhere that Thomas is 'wrong'. YOU'RE AN IDIOT! CHUTUP MORMON (That, by the way, was sarcasm.) That was something Branden didn't really care about - if it was something Branden had a strong opinion on, it would've been a different story. If Branden is suggesting this style he used to manage one very active contributor (such as ignoring my emails asking about some issues and then flaming me for doing it 'wrong' when I had to do *something*), can be successfully expanded to cover the entire Debian project, we're in trouble. [SNIP] Branden's reactions to my actions are what's in question here. I find perfectly normal that some people don't like other people and this is true for all of us. It is simply part of the human nature. It happens everywhere all the time.. at work, with friends and so on... And at this point you might also want to be fair towards all the candidates. How would you interpret this mail from the current DPL? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200311/msg00116.html As being quite harsh. (note that this reference is NOT meant to take credits away from anyone but only to show that even Martin as Branden as everyone else has a human side, as well all of you can just poke debian-apache for my flames.. http://lists.debian.org/debian-apache/2004/debian-apache-200403/msg00220.html oh yes.. i am human too. doh! ;)) Yeah, a quick application of Google will show I cannot moral-high-horse on this one. I don't have any real position on the flames, just on the fact that Branden is incapable of working with quite a few people - Martin seems to have pissed far less developers off than Branden. Of course, Branden is polarising (witness the 'Branden Fan Club'), for example, but I'd rather a DPL who could work quite well with all the people, than one who could work brilliantly with 20%, non-commitally with 40%, and not at all with another 40%. Of course we do agree that who is going to take leadership of Debian will have to behave impartially on top of his/her personal feelings, but I don't think it is fair to point the finger to any of the candidates using a single personal case. I don't think this is a single personal case; Branden said 'look how well I have managed the XSF, this is how well I'll manage Debian'. I felt I had to point out that this was not a good thing. -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: YOU'RE AN IDIOT! CHUTUP MORMON (That, by the way, was sarcasm.) lol :-) I would never take that seriously.. not from you at least :P I don't have any real position on the flames, just on the fact that Branden is incapable of working with quite a few people - Martin seems to have pissed far less developers off than Branden. Of course, Branden is polarising (witness the 'Branden Fan Club'), for example, but I'd rather a DPL who could work quite well with all the people, than one who could work brilliantly with 20%, non-commitally with 40%, and not at all with another 40%. I think that in both cases is due to the fact that X is under the eyes of everyone. You make one user happy and one DD no and viceversa. Same goes for apache (till a certain point).. you make happy a person fixing a bug, someone else complains about the fix... there is nothing you can do about it.. you get both the bad and good part of it. Of course we do agree that who is going to take leadership of Debian will have to behave impartially on top of his/her personal feelings, but I don't think it is fair to point the finger to any of the candidates using a single personal case. I don't think this is a single personal case; Branden said 'look how well I have managed the XSF, this is how well I'll manage Debian'. I felt I had to point out that this was not a good thing. I think you are misinterpreting Branden's platform or perhaps I am, but 'I emphasize this work because many of these advantages to managing software development translate to project management as well, as I will show.' means for me that he wants to use that knowledge and experience as a base for his job as DPL (if elected of course) and not as an exact match simply because there is no perfect match. Anyway it is soon time to vote of: Who is the weakest link^W^Wbest DPL? ;) Ciao, Fabio -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:49:55AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, Err, you think that uploading a major new version of a major package is a slip up? It seems a bit more deliberate than that to me. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:58:38PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:49:55AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, Err, you think that uploading a major new version of a major package is a slip up? It seems a bit more deliberate than that to me. Read the posts before you reply. I already said I was talking about the libGL/libGLU renaming, where Branden took the entire repository down, not the 4.3.0-1 upload. -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates
* Fabio Massimo Di Nitto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-20 07:17]: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in ^^ putting the right people together. Part of coordination is to take initiative. I don't know why you seem to see coordination as a passive role. Sorry but i don't understand what you are saying Martin, can you elaburate on your statement?. As a coordinator I can have initiatives and delegate their execution to appropriate people. This doesn't necessarly make me passive. I believe coordination is an active role. The paragraph I quoted above is from Branden who seems to define coordination in a way that initiatives are executed by others. Perhaps he can clarify if this is what he meant to say. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe coordination is an active role. The paragraph I quoted above is from Branden who seems to define coordination in a way that initiatives are executed by others. Perhaps he can clarify if this is what he meant to say. I think it is simplistic to try and say coordination is active or coordination is passive. Good leadership requires both. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in ^^ putting the right people together. Part of coordination is to take initiative. I don't know why you seem to see coordination as a passive role. Sorry but i don't understand what you are saying Martin, can you elaburate on your statement?. As a coordinator I can have initiatives and delegate their execution to appropriate people. This doesn't necessarly make me passive. Thanks Fabio -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Personally I don't agree with you. An eg. that doesn't touch either you or me directly: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=236780 Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, they get kicked out of the team briefly, others lose their access, Which others? afaik noone other than you has been kicked out from the XFS. My account was closed once to attempt to diagnose a problem you had connecting to the repository. For reference this was coordinated on IRC of which i do not have logs (#debian-devel on freenode). and #debian-devel's topic announces that the person has hijacked the package in question. Even if it was me the object of the topic i would have find it funny, perhaps my italian sense of humor? ;) More seriously, I would have probably reacted the same way if someone was going to upload one of the packages i co-maintain without warning and specially when i am not VAC or MIA, but active almost 24/7 and the TODO list for that release was still not empty. What would have been your reaction to a similar situation in which you were sitting in Branden position? Note that I am not commenting on your personal feelings since they represent your point of view and your personality and it doesn't stand up to me neither to judge them or try to convince you to change them. Fabio PS: I'm not subscribed to -vote, please CC me on replies. of course ;) -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:16:00AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Personally I don't agree with you. An eg. that doesn't touch either you or me directly: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=236780 Yes, but had I disagreed with Branden, my opinion would've been noted and very quickly discarded. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, they get kicked out of the team briefly, others lose their access, Which others? afaik noone other than you has been kicked out from the XFS. My account was closed once to attempt to diagnose a problem you had connecting to the repository. For reference this was coordinated on IRC of which i do not have logs (#debian-devel on freenode). I was briefly excommunicated from the XSF, and everyone had their access suspended, when I made the libGLU/libGL-renaming commit. That was when Branden set #debian-devel's topic to 'everyone congratulate Daniel Stone, he is the new XFree86 maintainer', or words to that effect. and #debian-devel's topic announces that the person has hijacked the package in question. Even if it was me the object of the topic i would have find it funny, perhaps my italian sense of humor? ;) I found it vaguely amusing (in a morbid kind of way), but it's not the sort of thing you do with packages that are, Branden insists, absolutely criticl to every single system running Debian. More seriously, I would have probably reacted the same way if someone was going to upload one of the packages i co-maintain without warning and specially when i am not VAC or MIA, but active almost 24/7 and the TODO list for that release was still not empty. What would have been your reaction to a similar situation in which you were sitting in Branden position? I'm not defending my conduct here as the way to work in a team; I'm stating what happened before this to make me decided I needed to leave the XSF, is not a sterling example of team leadership. If Branden is suggesting this style he used to manage one very active contributor (such as ignoring my emails asking about some issues and then flaming me for doing it 'wrong' when I had to do *something*), can be successfully expanded to cover the entire Debian project, we're in trouble. Note that I am not commenting on your personal feelings since they represent your point of view and your personality and it doesn't stand up to me neither to judge them or try to convince you to change them. I do indeed have my own feelings on my issue, and they aren't necessarily the obvious ones. This is wildly OT for -vote, though - what I did is irrelevant (or, more to the point, why); Branden's reactions to my actions are what's in question here. And not the issue of myself uploading 4.3.0-1 - all the stuff before that, that made me decide to leave the XSF. :) d -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgp2lIBwwoyor.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Personally I don't agree with you. An eg. that doesn't touch either you or me directly: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=236780 Yes, but had I disagreed with Branden, my opinion would've been noted and very quickly discarded. I think we are going personal here and i don't like to (since i am sure it will endup in a flameware, humorwant to bet Daniel that if it is not for us, someone else will turn this it into a flame? ;)/humor), but Thomas Hood (236780-submitter) expressed his disagrement with Branden on a certain decision and i don't read anywhere that Thomas is 'wrong'. If Branden is suggesting this style he used to manage one very active contributor (such as ignoring my emails asking about some issues and then flaming me for doing it 'wrong' when I had to do *something*), can be successfully expanded to cover the entire Debian project, we're in trouble. [SNIP] Branden's reactions to my actions are what's in question here. I find perfectly normal that some people don't like other people and this is true for all of us. It is simply part of the human nature. It happens everywhere all the time.. at work, with friends and so on... And at this point you might also want to be fair towards all the candidates. How would you interpret this mail from the current DPL? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200311/msg00116.html (note that this reference is NOT meant to take credits away from anyone but only to show that even Martin as Branden as everyone else has a human side, as well all of you can just poke debian-apache for my flames.. http://lists.debian.org/debian-apache/2004/debian-apache-200403/msg00220.html oh yes.. i am human too. doh! ;)) Of course we do agree that who is going to take leadership of Debian will have to behave impartially on top of his/her personal feelings, but I don't think it is fair to point the finger to any of the candidates using a single personal case. Fabio -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: Yes, but had I disagreed with Branden, my opinion would've been noted and very quickly discarded. I think we are going personal here and i don't like to (since i am sure it will endup in a flameware, humorwant to bet Daniel that if it is not for us, someone else will turn this it into a flame? ;)/humor), but Thomas Hood (236780-submitter) expressed his disagrement with Branden on a certain decision and i don't read anywhere that Thomas is 'wrong'. YOU'RE AN IDIOT! CHUTUP MORMON (That, by the way, was sarcasm.) That was something Branden didn't really care about - if it was something Branden had a strong opinion on, it would've been a different story. If Branden is suggesting this style he used to manage one very active contributor (such as ignoring my emails asking about some issues and then flaming me for doing it 'wrong' when I had to do *something*), can be successfully expanded to cover the entire Debian project, we're in trouble. [SNIP] Branden's reactions to my actions are what's in question here. I find perfectly normal that some people don't like other people and this is true for all of us. It is simply part of the human nature. It happens everywhere all the time.. at work, with friends and so on... And at this point you might also want to be fair towards all the candidates. How would you interpret this mail from the current DPL? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2003/debian-project-200311/msg00116.html As being quite harsh. (note that this reference is NOT meant to take credits away from anyone but only to show that even Martin as Branden as everyone else has a human side, as well all of you can just poke debian-apache for my flames.. http://lists.debian.org/debian-apache/2004/debian-apache-200403/msg00220.html oh yes.. i am human too. doh! ;)) Yeah, a quick application of Google will show I cannot moral-high-horse on this one. I don't have any real position on the flames, just on the fact that Branden is incapable of working with quite a few people - Martin seems to have pissed far less developers off than Branden. Of course, Branden is polarising (witness the 'Branden Fan Club'), for example, but I'd rather a DPL who could work quite well with all the people, than one who could work brilliantly with 20%, non-commitally with 40%, and not at all with another 40%. Of course we do agree that who is going to take leadership of Debian will have to behave impartially on top of his/her personal feelings, but I don't think it is fair to point the finger to any of the candidates using a single personal case. I don't think this is a single personal case; Branden said 'look how well I have managed the XSF, this is how well I'll manage Debian'. I felt I had to point out that this was not a good thing. -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgpIW82o52wcv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: YOU'RE AN IDIOT! CHUTUP MORMON (That, by the way, was sarcasm.) lol :-) I would never take that seriously.. not from you at least :P I don't have any real position on the flames, just on the fact that Branden is incapable of working with quite a few people - Martin seems to have pissed far less developers off than Branden. Of course, Branden is polarising (witness the 'Branden Fan Club'), for example, but I'd rather a DPL who could work quite well with all the people, than one who could work brilliantly with 20%, non-commitally with 40%, and not at all with another 40%. I think that in both cases is due to the fact that X is under the eyes of everyone. You make one user happy and one DD no and viceversa. Same goes for apache (till a certain point).. you make happy a person fixing a bug, someone else complains about the fix... there is nothing you can do about it.. you get both the bad and good part of it. Of course we do agree that who is going to take leadership of Debian will have to behave impartially on top of his/her personal feelings, but I don't think it is fair to point the finger to any of the candidates using a single personal case. I don't think this is a single personal case; Branden said 'look how well I have managed the XSF, this is how well I'll manage Debian'. I felt I had to point out that this was not a good thing. I think you are misinterpreting Branden's platform or perhaps I am, but 'I emphasize this work because many of these advantages to managing software development translate to project management as well, as I will show.' means for me that he wants to use that knowledge and experience as a base for his job as DPL (if elected of course) and not as an exact match simply because there is no perfect match. Anyway it is soon time to vote of: Who is the weakest link^W^Wbest DPL? ;) Ciao, Fabio -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:49:55AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, Err, you think that uploading a major new version of a major package is a slip up? It seems a bit more deliberate than that to me. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:58:38PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 11:49:55AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, Err, you think that uploading a major new version of a major package is a slip up? It seems a bit more deliberate than that to me. Read the posts before you reply. I already said I was talking about the libGL/libGLU renaming, where Branden took the entire repository down, not the 4.3.0-1 upload. -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates
* Fabio Massimo Di Nitto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-20 07:17]: On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in ^^ putting the right people together. Part of coordination is to take initiative. I don't know why you seem to see coordination as a passive role. Sorry but i don't understand what you are saying Martin, can you elaburate on your statement?. As a coordinator I can have initiatives and delegate their execution to appropriate people. This doesn't necessarly make me passive. I believe coordination is an active role. The paragraph I quoted above is from Branden who seems to define coordination in a way that initiatives are executed by others. Perhaps he can clarify if this is what he meant to say. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:03:17AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Hi, Andreas has asked a lot of the questions that I intended to ask as well, so I only need to amend one question he asked. Sorry for the delay in replying. Your amended question was a doozy! :) 2a. Do you see the concentration of many important roles on a few people as a problem? As example, I'd like to name DAM, keyring maintenance, release management, ftpmaster, listmaster and buildd coordination. While some of these roles are indeed officially shared among a team, practice shows that usually there is only one member of the teams acting publicly, with the others more or less acting as backup. Potentially, yes, I see it as a problem, but as has been pointed out, most of these roles appear to have delegates and/or backup personnel in place, even keyring maintainer. It could hurt to update what most people would probably think is our official documentation[1] to reflect this. Additionally, these teams don't seem to communicate well internally. I don't think that's true for all of them. I think it might be helpful if all mail to and from these role addresses (see [1]) were routed through a privately-archived list (much as debian-private is archived). We might then be able to more seriously assess whether this is true for a given team, and if so how bad the problem is. Do you agree, or does archiving pose a danger I do not anticipate? Do you see a problem when a request posed to a team is rejected along the lines of try again with another member? Yes and no. I don't have a problem with a request being bounced if it's flat-out inappropriate for that team. But I don't think that's quite the scenario you're talking about. If a team member feels the need to recuse himself from handling an apropos request, for whatever reason, he or she should probably communicate that fact to the rest of the team him- or herself. If the request came to a role address as it should, then that team member need do nothing more, as the entire team should be aware of the request. In this case, a system like RT would be a better fit than a mailing list, because every ticket is owned by someone. If the ticket is owned by Nobody or just a generic role address, then it's easy for observers to tell that no team member has accepted responsibility for it. It might be to tell when something's fallen on the floor that way than with a mailing list -- on the other, it's not *that* hard to send a one-line mail that says I'm on this. Hopefully one strategy or the other is palatable to most teams. The situation might be influenced as well by the fact that there are people on multiple important roles in Debian, and these people are notoriously overworked. Wouldn't it be better to allow only one or two important roles per person? If there's not a problem getting delegates or fallbacks appointed, no -- unless you can point out some sort of inherent potential conflict of interest between any two positions. What would you define an important role? That's a followup to your previous question, and I'd rather identify pairs of conflicting roles than by awarding the term important to some roles. After all, that implies the other roles aren't. Will you try to improve this situation during your term of office? What do you intend to do? I'm going to have to point you to my reply to Martin Schulze[2], though the answer is a little broad. If you perceive a strong conflict-of-interest between any of the roles listed on our organization page[1], I urge you to waste no time bringing it to the attention of the -project list. Note that the Constituion already forbids the same person from holding some offices, such as Project Secretary and Project Leader. General Rule 2.1.2 is: A person may hold several posts, except that the Project Leader, Project Secretary and the Chairman of the Technical Committee must be distinct, and that the Leader cannot appoint themselves as their own Delegate.[3] How will you answer if somebody asks you about your opinion on Debian being actually run by a cabal of at most six people? I'd say, Actually, it's run by a cabal of 908![4] :) I think the term cabal is too loaded for serious use, and is best reserved or wry or humorous discussion. And in my experience, that's pretty much how it's used. What would be your answer if somebody would suggest amending the constitution to move some of the important roles from being delegates of the DPL to being elected by the body of the developers? I'd say, Propose an RFC to debian-project, and see if you can come up with a proposal that's worth floating as a General Resolution on debian-vote. I don't think your suggestion has been really seriously discussed before, at least not since the Constituion was first drafted, and I wouldn't want to pre-judge or bias the discussion by
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 00:57]: [...] I certainly hope that people will ask themselves whether I have been productive as DPL. The following questions you raised are all valid, and they are questions I have constantly asked myself throughout the year in order to measure my performance. Okay. What were your answers? In summary, the biggest difference between Martin and me is that he has had a year to demonstrate his efficacy as DPL. I would go a step further and also ask how much Branden has achieved of what he wrote in his platforms in the last years, and how much of this has been done by others in the meantime (not necessarily DPLs). Rather than doing things which might be perceived as undermining your authority, or paying disrespect to the will of the electorate (despite the very close results), I decided to engage in a practical demonstration of how I would achieve greater openness, communication, and collaboration, by first applying these principles to my own work in maintaining XFree86 for Debian. I suspect the significance of this action was not at all lost on you, since without the benefit of having seen my platform, you wasted no time in your own dismissing this work as completely irrelevant: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. I'm not running against my perceptions of Martin Michlmayr in 1998; I think it's only fair if he would do me the courtesy of offering compelling reasons he is preferable to Branden Robinson in 2004, not Branden Robinson in 1998. My comments were about Branden Robinson in 2004, not the one in 1998. I fully acknowledge that, for example, your communication has significantly improved over the years. Most of my arguments, however, are about personality; that is, skills which are hard to acquire. Style of communication is not a personality trait? How are we to draw conclusions about a person's personality if *not* through their words and actions? And if my communication skills have significantly improved over the years, as you fully acknowledge, how does it stand to reason that my personality has not changed? For that matter, if communication skills are completely decoupled from personality traits that are relevant to leadership, how are the voters to make an informed choice? People no more have the ability to read your mind than they do Gergely's or mine. Are you saying that I am an inferior candidate because I possess personality flaws that are not objectively demonstrable through my manner of communication? If people are to reject my significantly improved communication skills, and if they are to reject the skills it requires to to maintain a large package -- such as glibc or XFree86 -- what critera are the voters to use when evaluating us? Once you've eliminated what we say and what we do from consideration, the voters are left with who we are. In my own case, I know that I'm a good coordinator by nature. I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me as approachable, and know that I have always been this way. Okay. What I'm getting from this is basically that you were born to lead -- you've always been a great coordinator, by nature, and that you have *always* been approachable. That's great -- honestly. But is it more valuable than being adaptable to the needs of the Debian Project? I think I've shown adaptation, and you and Anthony Towns seem to agree, for all your criticisms. If born leaders are more suited to lead Debian than home-grown ones who have been forged in the crucible of our social environment, then why do we require that the Debian Project Leader even be a Debian Developer in the first place[2]? Surely any leader with inherently desirable qualities will be able to get him- or herself up to speed with our organizational structure and challenges without having to have gone through an apprenticeship phase. Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in putting the right people together. Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first place? Well, that's rather obvious -- because it wasn't optimal in the first place. It was a lesson I had to learn, and I think I learned it. I continue to learn, every day -- as I think we all do if we keep our inherent fallibility as human beings in mind. What I'm hearing from you is that Debian Project Leadership is not a position that is best earned -- it is best anointed upon those who have the most desirable innate qualities. Why is it a problem if my communication skills *had* to improve, as long as they have done so?
Re: Questions to candidates
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-19 18:06]: I certainly hope that people will ask themselves whether I have been productive as DPL. The following questions you raised are all valid, and they are questions I have constantly asked myself throughout the year in order to measure my performance. Okay. What were your answers? I think I have done a good job, which is why I am running again this year. Style of communication is not a personality trait? Of course it is, ... And if my communication skills have significantly improved over the years, as you fully acknowledge, how does it stand to reason that my personality has not changed? ... I never claimed that personality never changes; of course it does, it is just much harder to change than many other things. Okay. What I'm getting from this is basically that you were born to lead -- you've always been a great coordinator, by nature, and that you have *always* been approachable. That's great -- honestly. But is it more valuable than being adaptable to the needs of the Debian Project? If you're born to do something, does that necessarily make you less adaptable? If born leaders are more suited to lead Debian than home-grown ones who have been forged in the crucible of our social environment, then why do we require that the Debian Project Leader even be a Debian Developer in the first place[2]? Because Debian developer does not necessarily imply a technical function. You can contribute to the project in other ways, and surely someone interested in leading and coordinating Debian would contribute, and then sign up for NM. Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in ^^ putting the right people together. Part of coordination is to take initiative. I don't know why you seem to see coordination as a passive role. What I'm hearing from you is that Debian Project Leadership is not a position that is best earned I don't know where you're hearing this... Maybe so. But I don't believe at present that that's the way the Debian Project does work, or should work. It's not the kind of system I think of when I hear the word meritocracy -- to me, it's more like aristocracy. ... I had to show my skills, and win a reputation, just like everyone else in the project. I successfully did this over the years. I don't want people to vote for me because I might be innately a good leader, but because I have shown over the years that I am good at these tasks. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 06:06:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: I would go a step further and also ask how much Branden has achieved of what he wrote in his platforms in the last years, and how much of this has been done by others in the meantime (not necessarily DPLs). Rather than doing things which might be perceived as undermining your authority, or paying disrespect to the will of the electorate (despite the very close results), I decided to engage in a practical demonstration of how I would achieve greater openness, communication, and collaboration, by first applying these principles to my own work in maintaining XFree86 for Debian. I suspect the significance of this action was not at all lost on you, since without the benefit of having seen my platform, you wasted no time in your own dismissing this work as completely irrelevant: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. In that case, I'd rather you didn't be DPL. The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, they get kicked out of the team briefly, others lose their access, and #debian-devel's topic announces that the person has hijacked the package in question. Where people get kicked out, seemingly on a whim. WHere expectations of others that must be followed under all circumstances, are not followed by yourself. I was disillusioned with the XSF before I joined. When I joined, it didn't get better. My actions were a last-straw attempt to try and force two issues, which were quite successfully forced. I don't think your XSF credentials reflect at all positively on your nomination: if you want to get elected, you're best served by not mentioning that again. Oh, and did I mention that issues we agreed upon on the phone, were blatantly violated by yourself? You made a number of promises and conciliations, then proceded to go back to slandering me on IRC, as per usual. I have no confidence in you, Branden. Not as a developer, not as a team leader, and certainly not as a leader (I have more confidence in NOTA). Daniel, disillusioned and disappoitned ex-'X Strike Force' member PS: I'm not subscribed to -vote, please CC me on replies. -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in ^^ putting the right people together. Part of coordination is to take initiative. I don't know why you seem to see coordination as a passive role. Sorry but i don't understand what you are saying Martin, can you elaburate on your statement?. As a coordinator I can have initiatives and delegate their execution to appropriate people. This doesn't necessarly make me passive. Thanks Fabio -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Personally I don't agree with you. An eg. that doesn't touch either you or me directly: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=236780 Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, they get kicked out of the team briefly, others lose their access, Which others? afaik noone other than you has been kicked out from the XFS. My account was closed once to attempt to diagnose a problem you had connecting to the repository. For reference this was coordinated on IRC of which i do not have logs (#debian-devel on freenode). and #debian-devel's topic announces that the person has hijacked the package in question. Even if it was me the object of the topic i would have find it funny, perhaps my italian sense of humor? ;) More seriously, I would have probably reacted the same way if someone was going to upload one of the packages i co-maintain without warning and specially when i am not VAC or MIA, but active almost 24/7 and the TODO list for that release was still not empty. What would have been your reaction to a similar situation in which you were sitting in Branden position? Note that I am not commenting on your personal feelings since they represent your point of view and your personality and it doesn't stand up to me neither to judge them or try to convince you to change them. Fabio PS: I'm not subscribed to -vote, please CC me on replies. of course ;) -- user fajita: step one fajita Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log. user fajita: step two fajita When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:03:17AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Hi, Andreas has asked a lot of the questions that I intended to ask as well, so I only need to amend one question he asked. Sorry for the delay in replying. Your amended question was a doozy! :) 2a. Do you see the concentration of many important roles on a few people as a problem? As example, I'd like to name DAM, keyring maintenance, release management, ftpmaster, listmaster and buildd coordination. While some of these roles are indeed officially shared among a team, practice shows that usually there is only one member of the teams acting publicly, with the others more or less acting as backup. Potentially, yes, I see it as a problem, but as has been pointed out, most of these roles appear to have delegates and/or backup personnel in place, even keyring maintainer. It could hurt to update what most people would probably think is our official documentation[1] to reflect this. Additionally, these teams don't seem to communicate well internally. I don't think that's true for all of them. I think it might be helpful if all mail to and from these role addresses (see [1]) were routed through a privately-archived list (much as debian-private is archived). We might then be able to more seriously assess whether this is true for a given team, and if so how bad the problem is. Do you agree, or does archiving pose a danger I do not anticipate? Do you see a problem when a request posed to a team is rejected along the lines of try again with another member? Yes and no. I don't have a problem with a request being bounced if it's flat-out inappropriate for that team. But I don't think that's quite the scenario you're talking about. If a team member feels the need to recuse himself from handling an apropos request, for whatever reason, he or she should probably communicate that fact to the rest of the team him- or herself. If the request came to a role address as it should, then that team member need do nothing more, as the entire team should be aware of the request. In this case, a system like RT would be a better fit than a mailing list, because every ticket is owned by someone. If the ticket is owned by Nobody or just a generic role address, then it's easy for observers to tell that no team member has accepted responsibility for it. It might be to tell when something's fallen on the floor that way than with a mailing list -- on the other, it's not *that* hard to send a one-line mail that says I'm on this. Hopefully one strategy or the other is palatable to most teams. The situation might be influenced as well by the fact that there are people on multiple important roles in Debian, and these people are notoriously overworked. Wouldn't it be better to allow only one or two important roles per person? If there's not a problem getting delegates or fallbacks appointed, no -- unless you can point out some sort of inherent potential conflict of interest between any two positions. What would you define an important role? That's a followup to your previous question, and I'd rather identify pairs of conflicting roles than by awarding the term important to some roles. After all, that implies the other roles aren't. Will you try to improve this situation during your term of office? What do you intend to do? I'm going to have to point you to my reply to Martin Schulze[2], though the answer is a little broad. If you perceive a strong conflict-of-interest between any of the roles listed on our organization page[1], I urge you to waste no time bringing it to the attention of the -project list. Note that the Constituion already forbids the same person from holding some offices, such as Project Secretary and Project Leader. General Rule 2.1.2 is: A person may hold several posts, except that the Project Leader, Project Secretary and the Chairman of the Technical Committee must be distinct, and that the Leader cannot appoint themselves as their own Delegate.[3] How will you answer if somebody asks you about your opinion on Debian being actually run by a cabal of at most six people? I'd say, Actually, it's run by a cabal of 908![4] :) I think the term cabal is too loaded for serious use, and is best reserved or wry or humorous discussion. And in my experience, that's pretty much how it's used. What would be your answer if somebody would suggest amending the constitution to move some of the important roles from being delegates of the DPL to being elected by the body of the developers? I'd say, Propose an RFC to debian-project, and see if you can come up with a proposal that's worth floating as a General Resolution on debian-vote. I don't think your suggestion has been really seriously discussed before, at least not since the Constituion was first drafted, and I wouldn't want to pre-judge or bias the discussion by
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 00:57]: [...] I certainly hope that people will ask themselves whether I have been productive as DPL. The following questions you raised are all valid, and they are questions I have constantly asked myself throughout the year in order to measure my performance. Okay. What were your answers? In summary, the biggest difference between Martin and me is that he has had a year to demonstrate his efficacy as DPL. I would go a step further and also ask how much Branden has achieved of what he wrote in his platforms in the last years, and how much of this has been done by others in the meantime (not necessarily DPLs). Rather than doing things which might be perceived as undermining your authority, or paying disrespect to the will of the electorate (despite the very close results), I decided to engage in a practical demonstration of how I would achieve greater openness, communication, and collaboration, by first applying these principles to my own work in maintaining XFree86 for Debian. I suspect the significance of this action was not at all lost on you, since without the benefit of having seen my platform, you wasted no time in your own dismissing this work as completely irrelevant: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. I'm not running against my perceptions of Martin Michlmayr in 1998; I think it's only fair if he would do me the courtesy of offering compelling reasons he is preferable to Branden Robinson in 2004, not Branden Robinson in 1998. My comments were about Branden Robinson in 2004, not the one in 1998. I fully acknowledge that, for example, your communication has significantly improved over the years. Most of my arguments, however, are about personality; that is, skills which are hard to acquire. Style of communication is not a personality trait? How are we to draw conclusions about a person's personality if *not* through their words and actions? And if my communication skills have significantly improved over the years, as you fully acknowledge, how does it stand to reason that my personality has not changed? For that matter, if communication skills are completely decoupled from personality traits that are relevant to leadership, how are the voters to make an informed choice? People no more have the ability to read your mind than they do Gergely's or mine. Are you saying that I am an inferior candidate because I possess personality flaws that are not objectively demonstrable through my manner of communication? If people are to reject my significantly improved communication skills, and if they are to reject the skills it requires to to maintain a large package -- such as glibc or XFree86 -- what critera are the voters to use when evaluating us? Once you've eliminated what we say and what we do from consideration, the voters are left with who we are. In my own case, I know that I'm a good coordinator by nature. I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me as approachable, and know that I have always been this way. Okay. What I'm getting from this is basically that you were born to lead -- you've always been a great coordinator, by nature, and that you have *always* been approachable. That's great -- honestly. But is it more valuable than being adaptable to the needs of the Debian Project? I think I've shown adaptation, and you and Anthony Towns seem to agree, for all your criticisms. If born leaders are more suited to lead Debian than home-grown ones who have been forged in the crucible of our social environment, then why do we require that the Debian Project Leader even be a Debian Developer in the first place[2]? Surely any leader with inherently desirable qualities will be able to get him- or herself up to speed with our organizational structure and challenges without having to have gone through an apprenticeship phase. Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in putting the right people together. Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first place? Well, that's rather obvious -- because it wasn't optimal in the first place. It was a lesson I had to learn, and I think I learned it. I continue to learn, every day -- as I think we all do if we keep our inherent fallibility as human beings in mind. What I'm hearing from you is that Debian Project Leadership is not a position that is best earned -- it is best anointed upon those who have the most desirable innate qualities. Why is it a problem if my communication skills *had* to improve, as long as they have done so?
Re: Questions to candidates
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-19 18:06]: I certainly hope that people will ask themselves whether I have been productive as DPL. The following questions you raised are all valid, and they are questions I have constantly asked myself throughout the year in order to measure my performance. Okay. What were your answers? I think I have done a good job, which is why I am running again this year. Style of communication is not a personality trait? Of course it is, ... And if my communication skills have significantly improved over the years, as you fully acknowledge, how does it stand to reason that my personality has not changed? ... I never claimed that personality never changes; of course it does, it is just much harder to change than many other things. Okay. What I'm getting from this is basically that you were born to lead -- you've always been a great coordinator, by nature, and that you have *always* been approachable. That's great -- honestly. But is it more valuable than being adaptable to the needs of the Debian Project? If you're born to do something, does that necessarily make you less adaptable? If born leaders are more suited to lead Debian than home-grown ones who have been forged in the crucible of our social environment, then why do we require that the Debian Project Leader even be a Debian Developer in the first place[2]? Because Debian developer does not necessarily imply a technical function. You can contribute to the project in other ways, and surely someone interested in leading and coordinating Debian would contribute, and then sign up for NM. Especially if that leader's most valuable trait is coordination: the initiatives are executed by others, while the leader's role is simply in ^^ putting the right people together. Part of coordination is to take initiative. I don't know why you seem to see coordination as a passive role. What I'm hearing from you is that Debian Project Leadership is not a position that is best earned I don't know where you're hearing this... Maybe so. But I don't believe at present that that's the way the Debian Project does work, or should work. It's not the kind of system I think of when I hear the word meritocracy -- to me, it's more like aristocracy. ... I had to show my skills, and win a reputation, just like everyone else in the project. I successfully did this over the years. I don't want people to vote for me because I might be innately a good leader, but because I have shown over the years that I am good at these tasks. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 13:39]: But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and drive. I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy. Do you feel that isn't true of either or both of your opponents in this election? Gergely is unfortunately not as involved in Debian anymore as he used to be (I think his girlfriend is a large distraction ;), but he's still contributing important work, such as dpatch, which I use myself. You (Branden) are certainly very enthusiastic as well, as for example seen by your -legal mails; I never disputed this. Since you asked, let me raise a concern, though. I am wondering if you have enough time to act as DPL. In fact, your presentation of the situation does not correspond to the impression I have. In http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00052.html you said that, In order to accept the added responsibilities of Project Leader, I have resigned as SPI Treasurer. As DPL, I tried to get you as SPI Treasurer reimburse various Debian people for months, without any success. Also, someone mailed [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] recently, asking why their significant contribution to support Debian has not been accepted and why they had not received their acknowledgment letter yet (needed for tax purposes). From my experience, you have neglected the Treasurer role for months, rather than given it up to make more time in case you get elected as DPL. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 06:06:27PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: I would go a step further and also ask how much Branden has achieved of what he wrote in his platforms in the last years, and how much of this has been done by others in the meantime (not necessarily DPLs). Rather than doing things which might be perceived as undermining your authority, or paying disrespect to the will of the electorate (despite the very close results), I decided to engage in a practical demonstration of how I would achieve greater openness, communication, and collaboration, by first applying these principles to my own work in maintaining XFree86 for Debian. I suspect the significance of this action was not at all lost on you, since without the benefit of having seen my platform, you wasted no time in your own dismissing this work as completely irrelevant: Coordinating a project the size of Debian requires a very different set of skills than maintaining a large package, such as glibc.[1] ...or XFree86, the reader is surely invited to infer. In that case, I'd rather you didn't be DPL. The XSF is run as a Branden-centric 'team', whereby if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. Where if someone slips up and gets a little overenthusiastic, they get kicked out of the team briefly, others lose their access, and #debian-devel's topic announces that the person has hijacked the package in question. Where people get kicked out, seemingly on a whim. WHere expectations of others that must be followed under all circumstances, are not followed by yourself. I was disillusioned with the XSF before I joined. When I joined, it didn't get better. My actions were a last-straw attempt to try and force two issues, which were quite successfully forced. I don't think your XSF credentials reflect at all positively on your nomination: if you want to get elected, you're best served by not mentioning that again. Oh, and did I mention that issues we agreed upon on the phone, were blatantly violated by yourself? You made a number of promises and conciliations, then proceded to go back to slandering me on IRC, as per usual. I have no confidence in you, Branden. Not as a developer, not as a team leader, and certainly not as a leader (I have more confidence in NOTA). Daniel, disillusioned and disappoitned ex-'X Strike Force' member PS: I'm not subscribed to -vote, please CC me on replies. -- Daniel Stone[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org pgpwSYW17cICr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 13:52]: But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and drive. That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you. I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy. Do you feel that isn't true of either or both of your opponents in this election? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 13:52]: But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and drive. That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you. I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy. Do you feel that isn't true of either or both of your opponents in this election? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 00:57]: In fact, Martin criticized me last year for not having novel ideas: [..] Note that he didn't say he thought they were bad ideas; instead he asserted that I would be ineffective at achieving them. Yes, and I still assert the same. As I said in my response, this year's election is not necessarily about novel ideas because it's pretty clear what needs to be done - instead, it's really about good, efficient solutions. The question is which candidate can implement those changes in a more efficient manner. As I argued, I think I've demonstrated that I can work with the members of Debian to implement important changes. I certainly hope that people will ask themselves whether I have been productive as DPL. The following questions you raised are all valid, and they are questions I have constantly asked myself throughout the year in order to measure my performance. The best way to evaluate any incumbent in an election is simply by looking at his or her record, so I'll ask some questions of the voters that are generally applicable the situation. The incumbent has had a year to prove his effectiveness. Has he delivered on his promises? Has he been the kind of leader you expected him to be based on his platform? Is it clear to you that he is more effective than the other candidates last year? [...] In summary, the biggest difference between Martin and me is that he has had a year to demonstrate his efficacy as DPL. I would go a step further and also ask how much Branden has achieved of what he wrote in his platforms in the last years, and how much of this has been done by others in the meantime (not necessarily DPLs). I'm not running against my perceptions of Martin Michlmayr in 1998; I think it's only fair if he would do me the courtesy of offering compelling reasons he is preferable to Branden Robinson in 2004, not Branden Robinson in 1998. My comments were about Branden Robinson in 2004, not the one in 1998. I fully acknowledge that, for example, your communication has significantly improved over the years. Most of my arguments, however, are about personality; that is, skills which are hard to acquire. In my own case, I know that I'm a good coordinator by nature. Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first place? I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me as approachable, and know that I have always been this way. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first place? I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me as approachable, and know that I have always been this way. I don't think that's a relevant question. Relevant points include: [*] Your own lack of flamage (I'll take your word on that), and approachability. [*] Branden's current approach to issues -- especially DPL-ish isssues. I imagine his approachability is also relevant. But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and drive. That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 13:52]: But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and drive. That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you. I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy. I don't doubt that -- I'm definitely ranking you above the default option. But, I still have to make up my mind about how I'm ranking you vs. Branden. [And, I can't promise I'll make that decision based on perfect information.] Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 00:57]: In fact, Martin criticized me last year for not having novel ideas: [..] Note that he didn't say he thought they were bad ideas; instead he asserted that I would be ineffective at achieving them. Yes, and I still assert the same. As I said in my response, this year's election is not necessarily about novel ideas because it's pretty clear what needs to be done - instead, it's really about good, efficient solutions. The question is which candidate can implement those changes in a more efficient manner. As I argued, I think I've demonstrated that I can work with the members of Debian to implement important changes. I certainly hope that people will ask themselves whether I have been productive as DPL. The following questions you raised are all valid, and they are questions I have constantly asked myself throughout the year in order to measure my performance. The best way to evaluate any incumbent in an election is simply by looking at his or her record, so I'll ask some questions of the voters that are generally applicable the situation. The incumbent has had a year to prove his effectiveness. Has he delivered on his promises? Has he been the kind of leader you expected him to be based on his platform? Is it clear to you that he is more effective than the other candidates last year? [...] In summary, the biggest difference between Martin and me is that he has had a year to demonstrate his efficacy as DPL. I would go a step further and also ask how much Branden has achieved of what he wrote in his platforms in the last years, and how much of this has been done by others in the meantime (not necessarily DPLs). I'm not running against my perceptions of Martin Michlmayr in 1998; I think it's only fair if he would do me the courtesy of offering compelling reasons he is preferable to Branden Robinson in 2004, not Branden Robinson in 1998. My comments were about Branden Robinson in 2004, not the one in 1998. I fully acknowledge that, for example, your communication has significantly improved over the years. Most of my arguments, however, are about personality; that is, skills which are hard to acquire. In my own case, I know that I'm a good coordinator by nature. Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first place? I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me as approachable, and know that I have always been this way. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:10:28PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Furthermore, partly in line with AJ said, while your communication has significantly improved, I wonder why it had to improve in the first place? I have never been known for flamewars, and most people know me as approachable, and know that I have always been this way. I don't think that's a relevant question. Relevant points include: [*] Your own lack of flamage (I'll take your word on that), and approachability. [*] Branden's current approach to issues -- especially DPL-ish isssues. I imagine his approachability is also relevant. But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and drive. That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Questions to candidates
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 13:52]: But, even more important than individual interactions is energy and drive. That's what I'm still trying to figure out about the both of you. I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:05:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: I can only invite you to look at the work I've done for Debian over the last years. You'll see a high level of commitment and energy. I don't doubt that -- I'm definitely ranking you above the default option. But, I still have to make up my mind about how I'm ranking you vs. Branden. [And, I can't promise I'll make that decision based on perfect information.] Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:35:01AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: Question 1, to Branden and Martin: Reading over your platforms, I notice that they are very similar. I don't think this is a bad thing; I happen to agree quite strongly with both of your assessments of productive roles the DPL can play in our community. Unfortunately, this means I find it difficult to rate one of you over the other as candidates. In your opinion, what are the factors that differentiate you from the other as a candidate, either in terms of your platform or of your abilities to achieve the stated goals? Martin's platform covers a lot of material that was in his platform from last year covered, as does mine. In fact, Martin criticized me last year for not having novel ideas: I didn't see many new thoughts in Branden's platform that were not discussed in previous years.[1] Note that he didn't say he thought they were bad ideas; instead he asserted that I would be ineffective at achieving them. The best way to evaluate any incumbent in an election is simply by looking at his or her record, so I'll ask some questions of the voters that are generally applicable the situation. The incumbent has had a year to prove his effectiveness. Has he delivered on his promises? Has he been the kind of leader you expected him to be based on his platform? Is it clear to you that he is more effective than the other candidates last year? What do you think the project would look like today if Bdale has been re-elected? What do you think the project would look like today if I had been elected? Would we be better or worse off? Last year, Martin criticized Moshe Zadka for intending to not do anything at all: Unfortunately, with this attitude, we would not go anywhere. If everyone thought they would not have to do a specific task because someone else might do it, then things will never get done.[1] In your opinion, to what extent has Martin differentiated himself from a candidate who proclaimed he would do nothing at all? Have the things Martin claims credit for been the direct result of his leadership, or would they have happened anyway? Last year, Martin criticized Bdale Garbee for emphasizing communication, yet not practicing enough of it: I found it interesting that Bdale speaks of communication in his platform because lack of communication and visibility in the project is the reason of my disappointment. While I have heard that Bdale has done a huge amount of communication behind the scenes which was very important in getting things (such as keyring) fixed, I personally felt that the community at large was not well informed at all of what was going on.[1] How has Martin improved on this standard? His platform for this year emphasizes coordination, motivation, and leadership. He has spoken at length on this list about the private communications he has engaged in have helped get things done, for instance with the resolution of the FDL issue with the Free Software Foundation. Lest these questions seem harsh, let me say now that if I am elected, I fully expect to be judged by them in a year's time. In fact, any incumbent DPL would do well to self-challenge in exactly this manner when writing a platform for their re-election. In summary, the biggest difference between Martin and me is that he has had a year to demonstrate his efficacy as DPL. Whether you think this is a strength or a weakness for him would, I imagine, play a pretty significant role in your vote. What do you each believe are your *weaknesses* compared to the other candidate? My biggest weakness is that I am often tried in absentia for being an outspoken person. In many situations, I don't hesitate to let someone know if I disagree with them, and in years past, I was colorful in the way I did it. My outspokenness has caused me to accrete some mythology about my personality, not all of it flattering. I've come to appreciate that this perception is largely beyond my control, however. In personal and email conversations, I've been told with increasing frequency over the years that I'm not the firebrand I was when I first joined the project. This maturation of my approach, however, is sometimes tempting or convenient to ignore, as Martin has done by characterizing me as lacking people and social skills. People who have met me at conferences such as LinuxWorld and DebConf appear to find me quite approachable; I've made a lot of new friends at these events, especially among people who aren't very active on our mailing lists or in channels I frequent on IRC, and cemented friendships with many of those who do. In all sincerity, I don't think there's a whole lot to this criticism anymore. People who've watched my work as SPI Treasurer, on debian-legal, and on debian-x, among other lists, know that I'm a controlled and deliberate person (even in the presence of some occasional hard-core baiting :) ). My employer trusts me to
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:35:01AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: Question 1, to Branden and Martin: Reading over your platforms, I notice that they are very similar. I don't think this is a bad thing; I happen to agree quite strongly with both of your assessments of productive roles the DPL can play in our community. Unfortunately, this means I find it difficult to rate one of you over the other as candidates. In your opinion, what are the factors that differentiate you from the other as a candidate, either in terms of your platform or of your abilities to achieve the stated goals? Martin's platform covers a lot of material that was in his platform from last year covered, as does mine. In fact, Martin criticized me last year for not having novel ideas: I didn't see many new thoughts in Branden's platform that were not discussed in previous years.[1] Note that he didn't say he thought they were bad ideas; instead he asserted that I would be ineffective at achieving them. The best way to evaluate any incumbent in an election is simply by looking at his or her record, so I'll ask some questions of the voters that are generally applicable the situation. The incumbent has had a year to prove his effectiveness. Has he delivered on his promises? Has he been the kind of leader you expected him to be based on his platform? Is it clear to you that he is more effective than the other candidates last year? What do you think the project would look like today if Bdale has been re-elected? What do you think the project would look like today if I had been elected? Would we be better or worse off? Last year, Martin criticized Moshe Zadka for intending to not do anything at all: Unfortunately, with this attitude, we would not go anywhere. If everyone thought they would not have to do a specific task because someone else might do it, then things will never get done.[1] In your opinion, to what extent has Martin differentiated himself from a candidate who proclaimed he would do nothing at all? Have the things Martin claims credit for been the direct result of his leadership, or would they have happened anyway? Last year, Martin criticized Bdale Garbee for emphasizing communication, yet not practicing enough of it: I found it interesting that Bdale speaks of communication in his platform because lack of communication and visibility in the project is the reason of my disappointment. While I have heard that Bdale has done a huge amount of communication behind the scenes which was very important in getting things (such as keyring) fixed, I personally felt that the community at large was not well informed at all of what was going on.[1] How has Martin improved on this standard? His platform for this year emphasizes coordination, motivation, and leadership. He has spoken at length on this list about the private communications he has engaged in have helped get things done, for instance with the resolution of the FDL issue with the Free Software Foundation. Lest these questions seem harsh, let me say now that if I am elected, I fully expect to be judged by them in a year's time. In fact, any incumbent DPL would do well to self-challenge in exactly this manner when writing a platform for their re-election. In summary, the biggest difference between Martin and me is that he has had a year to demonstrate his efficacy as DPL. Whether you think this is a strength or a weakness for him would, I imagine, play a pretty significant role in your vote. What do you each believe are your *weaknesses* compared to the other candidate? My biggest weakness is that I am often tried in absentia for being an outspoken person. In many situations, I don't hesitate to let someone know if I disagree with them, and in years past, I was colorful in the way I did it. My outspokenness has caused me to accrete some mythology about my personality, not all of it flattering. I've come to appreciate that this perception is largely beyond my control, however. In personal and email conversations, I've been told with increasing frequency over the years that I'm not the firebrand I was when I first joined the project. This maturation of my approach, however, is sometimes tempting or convenient to ignore, as Martin has done by characterizing me as lacking people and social skills. People who have met me at conferences such as LinuxWorld and DebConf appear to find me quite approachable; I've made a lot of new friends at these events, especially among people who aren't very active on our mailing lists or in channels I frequent on IRC, and cemented friendships with many of those who do. In all sincerity, I don't think there's a whole lot to this criticism anymore. People who've watched my work as SPI Treasurer, on debian-legal, and on debian-x, among other lists, know that I'm a controlled and deliberate person (even in the presence of some occasional hard-core baiting :) ). My employer trusts me to
Re: Questions to candidates
* Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-05 08:48]: I would like to ask what you have done in your past term to find out overworked core roles, and what happened to ease the work load on these core roles. I stay in constant contact with a wide range of people involved in core team. Just to give two examples, I'm in regular contact with Matt Zimmerman (security) and Pascal Hakim (listmaster), but the same goes for other people and groups. By staying in regular contact with those people, I have a very good understanding of their work, of their problems, and know how to help them. In the case of security, I promoted Matt to a fully security member soon after becoming DPL which improved the situation significantly (just look who's doing most security updates these days); however, this is not enough. I've been working with Matt to find more volunteers for the security team, and we have been discussing a security database which will allow more coordination within the security team. As to listmaster, I regularly give Pasc advice on procedural matters, and we also talk about problems with man power. Joe Nahmias has recently been added as a listmaster, and we're discussing whether another addition is required. I worked with the DAM to find out how his job can be made easier, and certain changes led to major improvements. There are also other things that needs to be done with are not directly related to work load. For example, Joey Hess complained that it takes him a long time to test debian-installer, so I talked to a hardware company to get a laptop on loan to him. In the buildd situation, I found out that some MIPS hardware became unavailable, and so arranged for a new MIPS machine (which is currently being built up). Are you satisfied with the success of the measures you took? Yes, I think good progress has been made, but much remains to be done. As I say in my platform (http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/tbm), While progress is being made, much remains to be done. I intend to give special attention to this issue - please see my platform. From a few of the flamef^wdiscussions about important roles in the past, I have learnt that the project also has a history of rejecting people wanting to help. As I argue in my platform and in various mails on -vote, I think this is often because of bad communication. Since I know how the core teams work, I know fairly well what exactly they need and how to get people involved with these teams. See e.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00025.html for more information on this. I am quite disappointed by the project's handling of - for example - people who would like to contribute additional buildds for architectures that notoriously lagged behind. There were good reasons for rejecting that offer, even if they were not communicated well (for example, the machine had a slow CPU and not enough disk). Again, I think communication is often a problem, and I can help because I'm in a position to interact with a wide range of people. As a matter of fact, another MIPS machine is in the process if being set up - this shows that offers are accepted, if they are done in the right way (and the machine also fulfils the requirements for a buildd). -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:51:08PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: I stay in constant contact with a wide range of people involved in core team. Just to give two examples, I'm in regular contact with Matt Zimmerman (security) and Pascal Hakim (listmaster), but the same goes for other people and groups. By staying in regular contact with those people, I have a very good understanding of their work, of their problems, and know how to help them. I must say, in my experience, Martin qualifies as one of the most get-a-holdable people in Debian. I've never had a problem getting in touch when I need something from him, and he has also often brought information to my attention on his own initiative. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
Hi Martin, On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:03:34AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Yes, please see my platform for more details. I will clearly identify who is overworked and help to find addition man power. I will also find out if there are other ways to help them carry out their tasks (for example by providing them with certain infrastructure). All of these coordination activities require person skills which I possess. I would like to ask what you have done in your past term to find out overworked core roles, and what happened to ease the work load on these core roles. Are you satisfied with the success of the measures you took? I doubt electing people would work very well, simply because there is often a lack of people willing to carry out a specific task (so who would you elect), and electing does not ensure that you create a team which can actually work together. This could be eased by not electing independent people, probably forming a team incapable of doing work, but by electing lists of people that have formed themselves before. This would, however, of course, need a big constitution change. From a few of the flamef^wdiscussions about important roles in the past, I have learnt that the project also has a history of rejecting people wanting to help. I am quite disappointed by the project's handling of - for example - people who would like to contribute additional buildds for architectures that notoriously lagged behind. Instead of allowing in more buildds, we have managed to scare people successfully operating buildds away, resulting in a net _loss_ of buildd time. Do you see this as a problem? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Re: Questions to candidates
* Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-05 08:48]: I would like to ask what you have done in your past term to find out overworked core roles, and what happened to ease the work load on these core roles. I stay in constant contact with a wide range of people involved in core team. Just to give two examples, I'm in regular contact with Matt Zimmerman (security) and Pascal Hakim (listmaster), but the same goes for other people and groups. By staying in regular contact with those people, I have a very good understanding of their work, of their problems, and know how to help them. In the case of security, I promoted Matt to a fully security member soon after becoming DPL which improved the situation significantly (just look who's doing most security updates these days); however, this is not enough. I've been working with Matt to find more volunteers for the security team, and we have been discussing a security database which will allow more coordination within the security team. As to listmaster, I regularly give Pasc advice on procedural matters, and we also talk about problems with man power. Joe Nahmias has recently been added as a listmaster, and we're discussing whether another addition is required. I worked with the DAM to find out how his job can be made easier, and certain changes led to major improvements. There are also other things that needs to be done with are not directly related to work load. For example, Joey Hess complained that it takes him a long time to test debian-installer, so I talked to a hardware company to get a laptop on loan to him. In the buildd situation, I found out that some MIPS hardware became unavailable, and so arranged for a new MIPS machine (which is currently being built up). Are you satisfied with the success of the measures you took? Yes, I think good progress has been made, but much remains to be done. As I say in my platform (http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/tbm), While progress is being made, much remains to be done. I intend to give special attention to this issue - please see my platform. From a few of the flamef^wdiscussions about important roles in the past, I have learnt that the project also has a history of rejecting people wanting to help. As I argue in my platform and in various mails on -vote, I think this is often because of bad communication. Since I know how the core teams work, I know fairly well what exactly they need and how to get people involved with these teams. See e.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00025.html for more information on this. I am quite disappointed by the project's handling of - for example - people who would like to contribute additional buildds for architectures that notoriously lagged behind. There were good reasons for rejecting that offer, even if they were not communicated well (for example, the machine had a slow CPU and not enough disk). Again, I think communication is often a problem, and I can help because I'm in a position to interact with a wide range of people. As a matter of fact, another MIPS machine is in the process if being set up - this shows that offers are accepted, if they are done in the right way (and the machine also fulfils the requirements for a buildd). -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:51:08PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: I stay in constant contact with a wide range of people involved in core team. Just to give two examples, I'm in regular contact with Matt Zimmerman (security) and Pascal Hakim (listmaster), but the same goes for other people and groups. By staying in regular contact with those people, I have a very good understanding of their work, of their problems, and know how to help them. I must say, in my experience, Martin qualifies as one of the most get-a-holdable people in Debian. I've never had a problem getting in touch when I need something from him, and he has also often brought information to my attention on his own initiative. -- - mdz
Re: Questions to candidates
Hi, Andreas has asked a lot of the questions that I intended to ask as well, so I only need to amend one question he asked. On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: 2. Recently we had some flamewars about concentration of power for some people inside Debian. While I'm much more relaxed than many others and save my time for work instead of fighting flame wars I have one certain question here. How do you see the role of James Troup in the project? 2a. Do you see the concentration of many important roles on a few people as a problem? As example, I'd like to name DAM, keyring maintenance, release management, ftpmaster, listmaster and buildd coordination. While some of these roles are indeed officially shared among a team, practice shows that usually there is only one member of the teams acting publicly, with the others more or less acting as backup. Additionally, these teams don't seem to communicate well internally. Do you see a problem when a request posed to a team is rejected along the lines of try again with another member? The situation might be influenced as well by the fact that there are people on multiple important roles in Debian, and these people are notoriously overworked. Wouldn't it be better to allow only one or two important roles per person? What would you define an important role? Will you try to improve this situation during your term of office? What do you intend to do? How will you answer if somebody asks you about your opinion on Debian being actually run by a cabal of at most six people? What would be your answer if somebody would suggest amending the constitution to move some of the important roles from being delegates of the DPL to being elected by the body of the developers? I am asking these questions because I am deeply disappointed with the way technical, procedural and communicative problems are handled by the project, and the DPL vote is the only way a mere mortal developer can influence the distribution of important roles in the Debian project. Thus, we need your answers to be able to choose the DPL who will try to solve the problems outlined above, and I surely hope that the three of you will answer differently ;) . Thanks for answering. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates - Debian/FSF discussions
On 2004-03-03 15:46:59 + Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-03 08:33]: It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three months? How much longer should this discussion be given? What would they do to see more FDL-caused bugs in Debian closed during their term? It's hard to predict how much longer it is going to take. Additionally, I asked how much longer you think this discussion should be given before taking further action. For example, is tagging FDL-caused bugs release-ignore for the next four years acceptable? I'm concerned that publicly ignoring these bugs weakens the ability of Debian's representatives to FSF and -legal in general to seek licence fixes that help us to fulfil our social contract. Do you share that concern? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:27:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I'm not sure it's fruitful to ground public conclusions (on -vote) on premises that have to remain private. If nothing else, it leaves non-Debian-Developers following our election process almost completely in the dark. Moreover, there are many Debian developers who are not subscribed to debian-private. Pascal Hakim, one of our list admins, told me on IRC that -private has about 844 subscribers, and according to the Secretary's vote page for this election[1], we have 908 developers. Many can be a slippery qualifier, but I admit the proportion of subscribers is far higher than I expected. I thought something like 1/2 to 2/3rds of our developers were subscribed. I must have given too much weight to the people who have periodcally trumpeted that they'll unsubscribe from -private if the off-topic stuff isn't kept to a minimum. :) Anyway, this figure is worth reporting if anyone wants to start a discussion of sensitive matters germane to the campaign. -private would be the place to do it. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_001 -- G. Branden Robinson|I must despise the world which does Debian GNU/Linux |not know that music is a higher [EMAIL PROTECTED] |revelation than all wisdom and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |philosophy. -- Ludwig van Beethoven signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for candidates -- Debian's Organizational Structure
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:49:10AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Out of curiosity, do you plan to only formally make the people working in these departments delegates? I plan to extend formal delegate status to everyone currently serving in those roles. It is possible that one or more of those people would be unwilling to accept formal delegate status in one or more of those positions. In that case, I will try to find out why, report my findings to the developers, and solicit advice. If there is someone in that list who appears to no longer be active with the Project, or who refuses to get back to me regarding the delegation issue specifically, I will consult with other members of the same team (where applicable), report my findings to developers, and solicit advice. If not, do you plan to fill the roles with different people than today? I do not intend to ask for anyone's resignation without offering them formal delegate status first (and not afterwards, either, without some buy-in from the developers). In summary: 1) I have no plans for a purge. 2) I am not going to make any single individual a campaign issue[1]. Do you believe the Tech Committee is effective in its role for the project? I suspect not; as I stated in my platform[2]: I will reactivate the Technical Committee -- which has fallen dormant again -- or amend the Constitution to replace it with a body that works better. That almost a year has gone by with no mail to the list (apart from a test message by Wichert Akkerman), let alone a dispute to resolve, makes me suspect that this body has lost the confidence of the developers. I'd like to work with the members of the Committee that are still interested in serving to see how this body can be improved and revitalized. I wonder why reviving the CTTE has to wait until you become the project leader. The Debian Project Leader is empowered by clause 5.1.6 of the Debian Constitution[2] to seat and remove members of the Technical Committee. The Project Leader may: [...] Together with the Technical Committee, appoint new members to the Committee. (See §6.2.) I cannot exercise this power unless I am elected. The current DPL can, if he chooses. Furthermore, if it is the case that the Technical Committee is a dysfunctional or ineffective body, the Constitution should be amended to dissolve it. The DPL has augemented power to initiate and manage General Resolutions (Constitution 4.2.1, 5.1.5, 5.1.7, and 5.1.8). If the Technical Committee should be replaced -- and I do not presume that to be the case -- then the Project Leader has the authority to inaugurate a new body accountable to him through delegation (Constitution 5.1.2), or by instantiating an independent group throu the General Resolution process (see above). I do not act on these matters at present because I perceive them as the Project Leader's prerogative. [1] With what should be the understood exception of the other candidates running for DPL; we almost have to discuss each other to some extent for purposes of contrast. Neverthess I have no intentions of divesting Martin Michlmayr or Gergely Nagy of any responsibilities they may currently possess as a result of my election as DPL, should that happen -- apart from the office of DPL itself, of course. [2] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution -- G. Branden Robinson| There's no trick to being a Debian GNU/Linux | humorist when you have the whole [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government working for you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Will Rogers signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates - Debian/FSF discussions
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 10:15]: Additionally, I asked how much longer you think this discussion should be given before taking further action. For example, is tagging FDL-caused bugs release-ignore for the next four years acceptable? In July last year, I was asked by some members of the FSF to give them more time, and not to remove the documents because this would make it harder to them to argue their case. Based on this, I decided for GFDL related bugs to be handled as sarge-ignore. I'm concerned that publicly ignoring these bugs weakens the ability of Debian's representatives to FSF and -legal in general to seek licence fixes that help us to fulfil our social contract. Do you share that concern? Yes, we certainly cannot ignore these bugs infinitely. However, I think we should give the FSF a chance to resolve this issue. Back In July, I thought the issue would be resolved much quicker - but I also thought Sarge would release much earlier. To answer your question: I think we should wait until after the release of Sarge, and then again evaluate the situation. If at that point they are still truly working on resolving the issue, I think we can give them _some_ more time. If not, it's time to remove the documents. Again, Don asked Eben for a status report yesterday, and I hope to get an rough answer of where they are. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates -- Debian's Organizational Structure
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 06:47]: I wonder why reviving the CTTE has to wait until you become the project leader. The Debian Project Leader is empowered by clause 5.1.6 of the Debian Constitution[2] to seat and remove members of the Technical Committee. The Project Leader may: [...] Together with the Technical Committee, appoint new members to the Committee. (See §6.2.) I cannot exercise this power unless I am elected. Your attitude seems to suggest that nothing in the project can be achieved without explicit authority given by the constitution. This is in contrast to how I perceive how the project works. I see that much authority is gained through work; for example, I started looking for inactive maintainers on my own, without the backing of the constitution or the DPL, and now I am perceived as the authority in this area. There are many other examples. In the specific case of the Technical Committee, you could have: - raised your concerns on -devel or the -tech-ctte mailing list - raised your concerns with the DPL - started a GR and possibly others. While you cannot exercise the power of clause 5.1.6 without being DPL, there seem to be other ways to approach this problem. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
* Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 09:03]: 2a. Do you see the concentration of many important roles on a few people as a problem? As example, I'd like to name DAM, keyring If they cannot successfully perform their duties, then this is certainly a problem, yes. See below. Additionally, these teams don't seem to communicate well internally. Do you see a problem when a request posed to a team is rejected along the lines of try again with another member? I think teams in general should (and do) agree on things. However, the world is not binary, and sometimes it's hard to give a strict yes or no. In such cases, I think it's perfectly okay to say I personally think FOO, but another member of the team may disagree with this. In your specific case of having a package rejected by one ftpmaster saying basically try again with another member, I think it would have been better for this ftpmaster to ask other people of the team and come to an agreement. The situation might be influenced as well by the fact that there are people on multiple important roles in Debian, and these people are notoriously overworked. Wouldn't it be better to allow only one or two important roles per person? What would you define an important role? I don't think that a rigid rule like only X roles per person would work. There are some people who can handle X roles perfectly while others wouldn't. It's the same with maintaining packages. Should there be a maximum number of packages someone may maintain? I don't think so, because there is no magic number which works for everyone. I have seen plenty of cases where maintainers do not have enough time to maintainer their _single_ package while other maintainers maintain 10 or 15 packages really well. Back to important roles. Just to give an example why only X roles per person would not work. Colin Watson does QA, BTS and release work and is doing a _very fine_ job at it. I cannot remember any complaints about his work. Myself, I'm handling the NM Front Desk, do QA and act as DPL. Rather than having a rigid rule like only X roles per person, I think we have to clearly identify who is overworked, so that we can then approach the problem. As I described in my platform (http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/tbm), section Internal - Core Teams, Delegates, Communication, Transparency, I believe many core teams do not have enough man power, and I am working with them to add more people. Will you try to improve this situation during your term of office? What do you intend to do? Yes, please see my platform for more details. I will clearly identify who is overworked and help to find addition man power. I will also find out if there are other ways to help them carry out their tasks (for example by providing them with certain infrastructure). All of these coordination activities require person skills which I possess. How will you answer if somebody asks you about your opinion on Debian being actually run by a cabal of at most six people? There is a group of people who do much work and control many things, but I don't see the project as being controlled by a small group. There are many people who can make great contributions (see below). What would be your answer if somebody would suggest amending the constitution to move some of the important roles from being delegates of the DPL to being elected by the body of the developers? I doubt electing people would work very well, simply because there is often a lack of people willing to carry out a specific task (so who would you elect), and electing does not ensure that you create a team which can actually work together. However, as DPL, I am listening to everyone and take this information into account when finding people for important roles. Also, this task is not limited to the DPL. the DPL vote is the only way a mere mortal developer can influence the distribution of important roles in the Debian project. I don't believe this is true. I joined Debian only a few years ago, and I did not have any special power or control at all. I first got involved in New Maintainer as an Application Manager and later helped out with the Front Desk. The same goes for my QA work. I did not need the DPL or anyone else - I influenced the distribution of roles myself by getting involved and helping out. I know some people perceive it to be difficult to join an important role, but many examples show that it is indeed possible. As argued in my platform, I am working with people to help them join important roles, and to add more man power to overworked groups. I can do this because I can interact with many different people and know how they work. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-03 10:35]: Reading over your platforms, I notice that they are very similar. I don't think this is a bad thing; I happen to agree quite strongly with both of your assessments of productive roles the DPL can play in our community. I think recent discussions have clearly shown the issues which have to be addressed in the next term. I am therefore not surprised that our platforms overlap to some extent. The question is really: who is best personality to address these issues? As I've argued in my platform, I think I am best suited to approach the current issues and to lead Debian. I think it is quite telling that I have a section about My Skills and Personality in my platform whereas Branden's platform gives less attention to this. Unfortunately, this means I find it difficult to rate one of you over the other as candidates. In your opinion, what are the factors that differentiate you from the other as a candidate, either in terms of your platform or of your abilities to achieve the stated goals? I have better social and people skills, and it is much easier to approach and interact with me. I think these are very important features because the project leader role is all about staying in contact with other people, talking to them, listening to them and representing them. If you want to fix a problem, you have to understand it first. I know many people in core teams, know how those teams work and can therefore approach problems much better. I also know a lot of people on a personal basis, and are friends with them. As a matter of fact, I spent this evening in a pub with James Troup, Colin Watson and Daniel Silverstone. All of them are good friends of mine, and we spent the evening discussing various Debian issues, and also simply having a lot of fun! (I actually started writing a TODO list in the pub so things we have discussed are not forgotten about.) I care about lots of people in the project on a personal basis, not just on a project-related one. Also, I think my approach to tackle issues works better. My approach is very soft, very evolutionary. I first make a clear picture of the whole situation. Talk to various people, on all sides. I work with people to see how they can get be helped, what they need, etc. I would not simply replace someone against their wish unless this is necessary, but I'd work with them, to find a solution which works for them and for others. This approach works very well, but sometimes takes time. Also, the activities are usually in the background, and others might not immediately be aware that progress is being made. In my opinion, Branden takes a more revolutionary approach. Things have to change, and they have to change NOW. In my opinion, such as an approach usually does not work, especially if you do not work together with the people who are affected. Finally, my approach is more pragmatic, and I think this produces much more solutions. While I agree with Branden that attention has to be given to the Constitution, he makes the impression that he cannot do anything without the Constitution and the authority granted through it. This is in contrast in how I perceive the project. In his past platforms and campaigns, he suggested becoming DPL would give him the authority to do something about inactive maintainers, to introduce an emeritus class, and this year to improve New Maintainer. While Branden was asking for authority to do all of this, I simply went ahead and approached the problem of inactive maintainers and introduced system tracking of them, helped separating emeritus people (together with James Troup) and significantly improved New Maintainer, as you can see in an independent analysis: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200402/msg01698.html What do you each believe are your *weaknesses* compared to the other candidate? As I said above, my approach is very gentle. I think it's an advantage rather than a weaknesses, but some people are looking for a big, strong, vocal person to fix all problems Debian currently has. Of course, things don't work this way; problems can only be fixed by working with people, something I'm really good at. One weaknesses is related to me mostly caring about _fixing things_, and this is often achieved magically in the background without people perceiving my involvement. For example, even though New Maintainer would suffer immensely if I stopped my work on it, most applicants are probably not aware of my involvement in NM at all. In the case of being DPL, there is an amazing number of day-to-day work which has to be done, but it's not worth talking about because each of the issue on its own is very small. However, if they were not dealt with on a daily basis, major problems would soon result. So one weakness is that I am not vocal enough about the work I do. I try to provide status reports, such as the report listing what I have been
Re: Questions to candidates
Hi Martin, On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:03:34AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Yes, please see my platform for more details. I will clearly identify who is overworked and help to find addition man power. I will also find out if there are other ways to help them carry out their tasks (for example by providing them with certain infrastructure). All of these coordination activities require person skills which I possess. I would like to ask what you have done in your past term to find out overworked core roles, and what happened to ease the work load on these core roles. Are you satisfied with the success of the measures you took? I doubt electing people would work very well, simply because there is often a lack of people willing to carry out a specific task (so who would you elect), and electing does not ensure that you create a team which can actually work together. This could be eased by not electing independent people, probably forming a team incapable of doing work, but by electing lists of people that have formed themselves before. This would, however, of course, need a big constitution change. From a few of the flamef^wdiscussions about important roles in the past, I have learnt that the project also has a history of rejecting people wanting to help. I am quite disappointed by the project's handling of - for example - people who would like to contribute additional buildds for architectures that notoriously lagged behind. Instead of allowing in more buildds, we have managed to scare people successfully operating buildds away, resulting in a net _loss_ of buildd time. Do you see this as a problem? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidates -- Debian's Organizational Structure
Branden Robinson wrote: I think the following roles should be formally delegated: FTP Archives Release Manager Release Manager for stable Bug Tracking System Mailing Lists Administration Mailing Lists Archives New Maintainers Front Desk Developer Accounts Managers Keyring Maintainers Security Team [3] Web Pages [3] System Administration LDAP Developer Directory Administrator DNS Maintainer (hostmaster) Hardware Donations Coordinator Accountant It's possible some of the above roles should be condensed into one. Out of curiosity, do you plan to only formally make the people working in these departments delegates? If not, do you plan to fill the roles with different people than today? Do you believe the Tech Committee is effective in its role for the project? I suspect not; as I stated in my platform[2]: I will reactivate the Technical Committee -- which has fallen dormant again -- or amend the Constitution to replace it with a body that works better. That almost a year has gone by with no mail to the list (apart from a test message by Wichert Akkerman), let alone a dispute to resolve, makes me suspect that this body has lost the confidence of the developers. I'd like to work with the members of the Committee that are still interested in serving to see how this body can be improved and revitalized. I wonder why reviving the CTTE has to wait until you become the project leader. Regards, Joey -- Linux - the choice of a GNU generation.
Re: Questions to candidates
Hi, Andreas has asked a lot of the questions that I intended to ask as well, so I only need to amend one question he asked. On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: 2. Recently we had some flamewars about concentration of power for some people inside Debian. While I'm much more relaxed than many others and save my time for work instead of fighting flame wars I have one certain question here. How do you see the role of James Troup in the project? 2a. Do you see the concentration of many important roles on a few people as a problem? As example, I'd like to name DAM, keyring maintenance, release management, ftpmaster, listmaster and buildd coordination. While some of these roles are indeed officially shared among a team, practice shows that usually there is only one member of the teams acting publicly, with the others more or less acting as backup. Additionally, these teams don't seem to communicate well internally. Do you see a problem when a request posed to a team is rejected along the lines of try again with another member? The situation might be influenced as well by the fact that there are people on multiple important roles in Debian, and these people are notoriously overworked. Wouldn't it be better to allow only one or two important roles per person? What would you define an important role? Will you try to improve this situation during your term of office? What do you intend to do? How will you answer if somebody asks you about your opinion on Debian being actually run by a cabal of at most six people? What would be your answer if somebody would suggest amending the constitution to move some of the important roles from being delegates of the DPL to being elected by the body of the developers? I am asking these questions because I am deeply disappointed with the way technical, procedural and communicative problems are handled by the project, and the DPL vote is the only way a mere mortal developer can influence the distribution of important roles in the Debian project. Thus, we need your answers to be able to choose the DPL who will try to solve the problems outlined above, and I surely hope that the three of you will answer differently ;) . Thanks for answering. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Re: Questions to candidates - Debian/FSF discussions
On 2004-03-03 15:46:59 + Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-03 08:33]: It's now over four years since RMS asked -legal for comments on the FDL. Do DPL candidates think agreement is likely in the next three months? How much longer should this discussion be given? What would they do to see more FDL-caused bugs in Debian closed during their term? It's hard to predict how much longer it is going to take. Additionally, I asked how much longer you think this discussion should be given before taking further action. For example, is tagging FDL-caused bugs release-ignore for the next four years acceptable? I'm concerned that publicly ignoring these bugs weakens the ability of Debian's representatives to FSF and -legal in general to seek licence fixes that help us to fulfil our social contract. Do you share that concern? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:27:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I'm not sure it's fruitful to ground public conclusions (on -vote) on premises that have to remain private. If nothing else, it leaves non-Debian-Developers following our election process almost completely in the dark. Moreover, there are many Debian developers who are not subscribed to debian-private. Pascal Hakim, one of our list admins, told me on IRC that -private has about 844 subscribers, and according to the Secretary's vote page for this election[1], we have 908 developers. Many can be a slippery qualifier, but I admit the proportion of subscribers is far higher than I expected. I thought something like 1/2 to 2/3rds of our developers were subscribed. I must have given too much weight to the people who have periodcally trumpeted that they'll unsubscribe from -private if the off-topic stuff isn't kept to a minimum. :) Anyway, this figure is worth reporting if anyone wants to start a discussion of sensitive matters germane to the campaign. -private would be the place to do it. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_001 -- G. Branden Robinson|I must despise the world which does Debian GNU/Linux |not know that music is a higher [EMAIL PROTECTED] |revelation than all wisdom and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |philosophy. -- Ludwig van Beethoven signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for candidates -- Debian's Organizational Structure
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:49:10AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Out of curiosity, do you plan to only formally make the people working in these departments delegates? I plan to extend formal delegate status to everyone currently serving in those roles. It is possible that one or more of those people would be unwilling to accept formal delegate status in one or more of those positions. In that case, I will try to find out why, report my findings to the developers, and solicit advice. If there is someone in that list who appears to no longer be active with the Project, or who refuses to get back to me regarding the delegation issue specifically, I will consult with other members of the same team (where applicable), report my findings to developers, and solicit advice. If not, do you plan to fill the roles with different people than today? I do not intend to ask for anyone's resignation without offering them formal delegate status first (and not afterwards, either, without some buy-in from the developers). In summary: 1) I have no plans for a purge. 2) I am not going to make any single individual a campaign issue[1]. Do you believe the Tech Committee is effective in its role for the project? I suspect not; as I stated in my platform[2]: I will reactivate the Technical Committee -- which has fallen dormant again -- or amend the Constitution to replace it with a body that works better. That almost a year has gone by with no mail to the list (apart from a test message by Wichert Akkerman), let alone a dispute to resolve, makes me suspect that this body has lost the confidence of the developers. I'd like to work with the members of the Committee that are still interested in serving to see how this body can be improved and revitalized. I wonder why reviving the CTTE has to wait until you become the project leader. The Debian Project Leader is empowered by clause 5.1.6 of the Debian Constitution[2] to seat and remove members of the Technical Committee. The Project Leader may: [...] Together with the Technical Committee, appoint new members to the Committee. (See §6.2.) I cannot exercise this power unless I am elected. The current DPL can, if he chooses. Furthermore, if it is the case that the Technical Committee is a dysfunctional or ineffective body, the Constitution should be amended to dissolve it. The DPL has augemented power to initiate and manage General Resolutions (Constitution 4.2.1, 5.1.5, 5.1.7, and 5.1.8). If the Technical Committee should be replaced -- and I do not presume that to be the case -- then the Project Leader has the authority to inaugurate a new body accountable to him through delegation (Constitution 5.1.2), or by instantiating an independent group throu the General Resolution process (see above). I do not act on these matters at present because I perceive them as the Project Leader's prerogative. [1] With what should be the understood exception of the other candidates running for DPL; we almost have to discuss each other to some extent for purposes of contrast. Neverthess I have no intentions of divesting Martin Michlmayr or Gergely Nagy of any responsibilities they may currently possess as a result of my election as DPL, should that happen -- apart from the office of DPL itself, of course. [2] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution -- G. Branden Robinson| There's no trick to being a Debian GNU/Linux | humorist when you have the whole [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government working for you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Will Rogers signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to candidates - Debian/FSF discussions
* MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 10:15]: Additionally, I asked how much longer you think this discussion should be given before taking further action. For example, is tagging FDL-caused bugs release-ignore for the next four years acceptable? In July last year, I was asked by some members of the FSF to give them more time, and not to remove the documents because this would make it harder to them to argue their case. Based on this, I decided for GFDL related bugs to be handled as sarge-ignore. I'm concerned that publicly ignoring these bugs weakens the ability of Debian's representatives to FSF and -legal in general to seek licence fixes that help us to fulfil our social contract. Do you share that concern? Yes, we certainly cannot ignore these bugs infinitely. However, I think we should give the FSF a chance to resolve this issue. Back In July, I thought the issue would be resolved much quicker - but I also thought Sarge would release much earlier. To answer your question: I think we should wait until after the release of Sarge, and then again evaluate the situation. If at that point they are still truly working on resolving the issue, I think we can give them _some_ more time. If not, it's time to remove the documents. Again, Don asked Eben for a status report yesterday, and I hope to get an rough answer of where they are. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates - Debian/FSF discussions
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-03 17:13]: Has all this talking resulted in even an iota of concrete movement on the official FSF position? Have there been any real promises made that there is indeed going to be a change, from hte powers that be in the FSF? Is there anything solid we can show our users about movement on this issue, neyond a bunch of people wandering around talking about it behind the scenes? I think this is getting off-topic for -vote and that it should be moved to -project. In any case, yes, the FSF promised us to make an announcement about this matter, but everything was delayed due to the reasons mentioned in the other mail. Anyway, I just mailed Don and asked him to get a new status report from Eben. Eben told me that there is a FSF board meeting at the end of this month and that we can expect some updates shortly afterwards. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:12:44PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-02 15:20]: This starts with the fact that he is known to actively maintain a quite long killfile For personal mail - not for role accounts. However, he is widely known to have a MTTA (medium time to answer) highly dependent on the sender of a message to a role-account attended by him, and it has been seriously suggested to use mediators in communicating with him. Do the candidates see it as a problem to have an individual that needs a communication manual in multiple very very central roles in the project? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Branden Robinson wrote [ Sorry if I do not answer right inside the thread but the Reply to links in the webform do not work as expected and I did not subscribed to the list. Please CC me, if you want to avoid this.] I'm not sure I can give you the kind of answer you're looking for. Why do you expect me to look for a certain answer. I just had the feeling that some things should be discussed. According to my point of view asking questions is no expression of critics. While I think that he did a great job in terms of finding technical solutions he absolutely fails in communication with people. This is too broad a statement. You are right here (as well as tbm) and I would like to correct my wording to he often fails in communication with a certain (and quite large) group of people. Sorry for the shortcut. If you ask me if it is more important to get work done or to leave work undone while working on communications skills I'd prefer the first. So I have no personal problems here which you might suspect when writing the first sentence I quotet from your mail. But Debien Leadership is no concern of personal feelings but representation to outsiders. I just wanted to make sure that the future DPL is able to explain things to outsiders the correct way. I just asked this question in reflection to some private mails I've got (and which point I do not really share). On a more serious note, it's safe to say that there are certainly people who have had trouble communicating with James in the past. There have been people who had trouble communicating with Martin Michlmayr, too. There have been people who had trouble communicating with me. It's hard to live in a real world. ;-) and ends with the inability to accept critics to his person. This is an overreaching statement. How can you know whether or not he accepts criticism? That he reacts to it (or not), doesn't tell you what he does with it internally. There is no open archive of debian-private but I have some mails stored in my private archive which leaded to this conclusion IMHO. Again - I have no personal problem with this as long as work is done fine - but the DPL might have to face this situation. I think it is polite, to say nothing of expedient, to refrain from speculating as to the psychological processes of our fellow developers except as a last resort. But I might have been tricked out by the fact that psychological analysis can't hardly done by e-mail conversation and thus my assumption might be wrong here. You're making pretty strong statements for someone who claims to have not been personally mistreated by James. It's fine to be an advocate for people who do feel that way, but I think such advocacy needs to stick to objectively demonstrable facts. I pointed the person in question to this URL in the archive. He might comment on. I will not quote debian-private mails in public and so I can not demonstrate here what leaded me to the statements I did. I am apprehensive about injecting real-world political opinions into this particular discussion, so if you'd really like to know what I think of the present U.S. administration, please ask in another forum. I did not want to inject real-world politics here. I know you from Oslo and I have no need to ask about your political opinion. I just wanted to know if the future DPL leader would have problems to travel to one or the other country which might be a constraint to his Debian related work. Kind regards Andreas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:58:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:12:44PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: 3. Do you think Debian should continue to support non-free? No. Debian is about creating a operating system with free software, and I don't think we should be in the business of distributing non-free software. I think we should focus on what we do best (create and integrate free software), and this would also get us closer to other players in the community, such as the FSF. Having said this, I don't think the current non-free removal vote is being done correctly. If we decide to remove non-free, we have to provide a good upgrade plan for our users. Thus, I think we should *first* move non-free to something like non-free.org, encourage people to use new APT sources list while at the same time supporting the old APT lines (i.e. still keeping it on Debian mirrors) for a while. I knew *somebody* was going to bite this one. It has proven to be difficult to impossible to get people to do any real work towards doing things in this obvious way. Taken as a given that everybody either wants to keep non-free or to remove it (near enough to accurate), I'll introduce this tautology: The work to provide an upgrade plan for non-free users must be performed by either or both of these groups: (a) Those who wish to see non-free removed (b) Those who wish to see non-free kept Group (a) does not want to do this work because they want to have nothing to do with non-free. Group (b) does not want to do this work because they want non-free to be in Debian, not external to it. Err, no, group (b) does not want to do this work, because it is not worth the effort. I guess it is reasonable to expect that the work be done by those advocating the change over those currently satisfied by the status quo. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:37:11AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:12:44PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-02 15:20]: This starts with the fact that he is known to actively maintain a quite long killfile For personal mail - not for role accounts. However, he is widely known to have a MTTA (medium time to answer) highly dependent on the sender of a message to a role-account attended by him, How many role accounts are read exclusively by James and no one else? Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:37:25AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Branden Robinson wrote [ Sorry if I do not answer right inside the thread but the Reply to links in the webform do not work as expected and I did not subscribed to the list. Please CC me, if you want to avoid this.] I usually log into master and bounce me the mails from /org/lists.debian.org/lists/debian-foo/2004/foo in order to answer them properly. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
